Oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL) before and after endodontic treatment: a systematic review

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objectives This systematic review was undertaken to determine the oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL) before and after endodontic treatment. Materials and Methods Based on the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (n = 7) were searched and from 1038 citations, 16 papers were included in this review. Information on study design, sample size, intervention/treatment modality, methods of assessing OHRQoL, and the key findings were extracted and analyzed. Results Among the 16 studies, 3 were cross-sectional surveys, 9 were longitudinal studies, and 4 were randomized clinical trials. The cross-sectional studies reported improvements in OHRQoL following root canal treatment. Comparative longitudinal studies did not identify a significant association between improvements in OHRQoL and the method of root canal instrumentation or number of instruments used. Clinical trials found that improvements in OHRQoL were significantly associated with instrumentation technique, surgical-incision approach, and the application of platelet-concentrate during surgery. Several methods of assessing OHRQoL were employed with the most common being the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), albeit using different versions. Conclusions The results of this systematic review indicate that the QoL of patients improved after endodontic treatment. Nevertheless, these results are limited to patients who seek endodontic treatment and cannot be generalized. The lack of well-designed observational studies with standardized assessment approaches, coupled with heterogeneity of study design and interventions, precluded quantitative synthesis. Clinical relevance Pragmatic clinical trials are more meaningful to understand patient-centered outcomes of treatment. This review shows that endodontic treatment does improve the QoL. However, future studies should use standardized tools and data reporting, which are critical to make meta-analyses possible.

This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit: