Criterios clínicos y radiológicos de los tratamientos endodónticos para rehabilitación endocrown: meta análisis.

Abstract

Objective: To establish the clinical and radiological criteria for endodontic treatment to determine the difference between the endocrown and conventional techniques through a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: An exhaustive systematic review was carried out in different databases such as PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science among others. The studies were tabulated with the following data: Author, year of publication, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other information, according to the PRISMA and Consort Modified statement, they were also evaluated according to the Cochrane guide, with the items of different biases Results: The observed standardized mean differences ranged from 0.0273 to 1.4852, with the majority of the estimates being positive, the estimated average standardized mean difference based on the random effects model was \hat{\mu 0.6425 (95 % CI 0.0496 to 1.2354). Thus, the average result differed significantly from zero (z = 2.1239, p = 0.0337). The Q-test for heterogeneity was not significant, but there may still be some heterogeneity in the true results (Q (4) = 8.5752, p = 0.0726, tau² 0.2431, I² = 53.6752%). Conclusion: The established criteria are structural loss, decreased proprioceptive sensitivity, filling material, chamber conformation, adhesion, and root fracture. It is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between endocrown and conservative restoration from the perspective of the established endodontic criteria.