Table 1.
Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review
| Study | Site and study design | Subjects (no. of children, age in years, no. of teeth, and type of irrigation) | Follow‐up in months | Ca(OH)2/iodoform group | Comparison group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Clinical success (%) | Radiograph success (%) | Type | Size | Clinical success (%) | Radiograph success (%) | ||||
| Al‐Ostwani et al. (2016)a |
University, Damascus, Syria RCT (double blinded) |
39 patients 3–9 48 primary molars Sodium hypochlorite |
6 12 |
16 |
15/16 (93.8) 14/16 (87.5) |
12/16 (75) 12/16 (75) |
ZOE |
16 16 |
15/16 (93.8) 14/16 (87.5) |
12/16 (75) 12/16 (75) |
| Endoflasb |
16/16 (100) 14/16 (87.5) |
13/16 (81.3) 13/16 (81.3) |
||||||||
|
Chen and Liu (2005) a |
Not mentioned, Taiwan RCT |
Number of patients not mentioned 3–8 104 primary teeth: 58 primary anterior and 66 primary molars Irrigation not mentioned |
18 | 64 |
45/64 (70.31) all teeth 25/30 (83.3) anterior 20/34 (58.8) molars |
NM | ZOE | 60 |
46/60 (76.66) all teeth 24/28 (85.71) anterior 22/32 (68.75) molars |
NM |
| Chen et al. (2017)a |
University, China RCT (double blinded) |
158 patients 4–9 163 primary molars Maxillary and Mandibular: 1st and 2nd primary molars 2.5% Sodium hypochlorite |
6 12 18 |
56 |
56/56 (100) 45/56 (80.4) 40/56 (71.4) |
53/56 (94.5) 34/56 (60.7) 30/56(53.6) |
ZOE | 51 |
51/51 (100) 51/51 (100) 47/51(92) |
51/51 (100) 51/51 (100) 45/51 (88) |
| MPRCFb | 53 |
53/53 (100) 53/53 (100) 51/53 (96) |
53/53 (100) 53/53 (100) 49/53 (92) |
|||||||
| Gupta and Das (2011)a |
University, Kolkata, India CT |
34 patients 4–7 42 primary mandibular molars Sodium hypochlorite + saline |
3 6 |
21 |
20/21 (95) 19/21 (90) |
20/21 (95) 20/21 (95) |
ZOE | 21 |
18/21 (85.7) 18/21 (85.7) |
19/21 (90) 19/21(90) |
| Ming‐zhi et al. (2009) |
University, China RCT |
115 patients 5–9 150 primary molars Hydrogen peroxide |
6 | 66 | Total success 55/66 (83.33) | NM | ZOE | 58 | NM | NM |
| Mortazavi and Mesbahi (2004) |
Not mentioned, Iran RCT |
58 Patients 3–13 58 primary teeth: 53 maxillary and mandibular primary molars and 5 primary anterior Saline |
3 10–16 |
26 |
26/26 (100) 13/13 (100) |
NM 26/26 (100) |
ZOE | 32 |
32/32 (100) 28/32 (87.5) |
NM 28/32 (87.5) |
| Ozalp et al. (2005)a |
University, Turkey RCT (single blinded) |
76 patients 4–9 40 primary molars Maxillary and mandibular primary molars: 1st and 2nd molars Sodium hypochlorite + metronidazole |
2 4 6 8 10 12 18 |
20 |
20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) |
20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) |
ZOE | 20 |
20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) |
20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) 20/20 (100) |
| Ping‐ping (2011) |
Hospital, China RCT |
50 patients 10–13 60 primary molars Saline + 3% hydrogen peroxide |
1 week | 30 | 29/30 (96.66) | NM | ZOE/iodoform | 30 | 17/30 (56.66) | NM |
| Pramila et al. (2016)a |
College and hospital, India RCT (double blinded) |
88 patents 4–9 129 primary mandibular molars 1st and 2nd molars Saline + chlorhexidine |
6 12 30 |
43 |
35/35 (100) 28/28 (100) 29/29 (100) |
30/35 (85.8) 25/28 (89.2) 28/29 (96.5) |
ZOE/iodoform | 43 |
35/35 (100) 32/32 (100) 31/31 (100) |
32/35 (91.4) 31/32 (94) 30/31 (96.77) |
| ZOE | 43 |
36/36 (100) 32/32 (100) 30/30 (100) |
36/36 (100) 32/32 (100) 30/30 (100) |
|||||||
| Ramar and Mungara (2010) |
College and hospital, India CT |
77 patients 4–7 96 primary mandibular molars Sodium hypochlorite + chlorohexidine |
3 6 9 |
30 |
30/30 (100) 30/30 (100) 30/30 (100) |
30/30 (100) 30/30 (100) 26/26 (100) |
ZOE/iodoform | 34 |
34/34 (100) 33/34 (97) 31/31 (100) |
32/34 (94.11) 27/34 (79.11) 31/31 (100) |
| Endoflasb | 32 |
32/32 (100) 32/32 (100) 31/31 (100) |
32/32 (100) 32/32 (100) 32/32 (100) |
|||||||
| Subramaniam and Gilhotra (2011)a |
College, hospital, and research center, Bangalore RCT |
Number of patients not mentioned 5–9 45 primary teeth: 5 maxillary, 40 mandibular Primary molars: 1st and 2nd molars Saline + sodium hypochlorite |
3 6 12 18 |
15 |
15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) |
15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) 15/15 (100) |
ZOE | 15 |
14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) |
14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) |
| Endoflasb | 15 |
14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) |
14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) 14/15 (93.3) |
|||||||
| Trairatvorakul and Chunlasikawan (2008)a |
Not mentioned ,Thailand RCT |
42 patients 3.4–7.9 54 primary mandibular molars 1st and 2nd molars Sodium hypochlorite |
6 12 |
27 |
27/27 (100) 26/27 (96) |
21/27 (78) 24/27 (89) |
ZOE | 27 |
26/27 (96) 25/27 (93) |
23/27 (85) 24/27 (88.8) |
| Wei Jian (2006)a |
Hospital, China CT |
179 patients 3–10 283 primary teeth: 79 anterior, 23 canine, and 181 molars Hydrogen peroxide + saline |
3 12 |
87 |
86/87 (98.8) 84/87 (96.5) |
NM | ZOE | 196 |
194/196 (98.9) 190/196 (96.9) |
NM |
| Xiao‐Fang and Xue‐ Bin (2003)a |
Hospital, China CT |
72 patients 4–9 81 primary molars: 37 maxillary and 44 mandibular Primary molars: 1st and 2nd molars Irrigation material not mentioned |
2 4 6 |
39 | There were no clear data about the overall clinical success |
20/20 (100) 2/20 (100) 19/20 (95) |
ZOE | 42 | There were no clear data about the overall clinical success |
15/17 (88) 15/17 (88) 16/17 (94) |
| Yu‐xiang et al. (2005) |
Hospital, China RCT |
273 patients 296 teeth 162 incisors 10 canines 124 Molars 1st and 2nd molars Irrigation material not mentioned |
12 | 151 | NM | NM | ZOE/iodoform | 145 | NM | NM |
Note. CT: clinical trials; NM: not mentioned; RCT: randomized controlled trials; ZOE: zinc oxide eugenol.
a
Studies included in meta‐analysis.
b
Endoflas and MPRCF: ZOE/iodoform and Ca(OH)2.