Postoperative pain in endodontic retreatment of one visit versus multiple visits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) was to assess the postoperative pain (PP) after non-surgical endodontic retreatment (NSER) in a one visit compared to multiple visits. The PICO question used was “Does NSER in patients with unsatisfactory endodontic treatment in a one-visit visit have a similar PP to that of NSER in multiple visits?” Materials and methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019136700). Searches were performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases for articles published until September 2020. The eligible criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel. The PP after the retreatment was analyzed using a dichotomous outcome, measured according to risk ratio (RR) when p < 0.05. The Cochrane scale was used to assess risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: Four studies were included. In general analysis without considering intensity, one-visit NSER presented lower PP than the multiple visits only for 1 and 30 days [(RR = 0.67; CI: 0.48 to 0.93; p = 0.02), and (RR = 0.09; CI: 0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.02)], respectively. Regarding sub-analysis considering the intensity, one visit present lower mild PP when compared with multiple visits [(RR = 0.54; CI: 0.30, 0.96; p = 0.04); (RR = 0.33; CI: 0.12, 0.88; p = 0.03); and (RR = 0.12; CI: 0.02, 0.86; p = 0.03)], respectively. However, sub-analysis for moderate and severe PP showed no significant difference, independently of period evaluated (p > 0.05). Regarding the risk of bias analysis, a low risk was observed for most domains, except allocation that was considered unclear, while the certainty of evidence for each analysis was considered low. Conclusion: Within the limitations of study, the one and multiple visit can be considered adequate, because both present a similar occurrence of PP, except for mild pain. However, due to the low number of studies, further well conducted and standardized RCTs are needed to reassess these results. Clinical relevance: Both therapies of endodontic retreatment can be considered in clinical practice. Therefore, the endodontist must consider the patient’s individual characteristics and experience to consider the best treatment approach.