MyMedR

Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 49 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

What is of interest in Endodontology? A bibliometric review of research published in the International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics from 1980 to 2019

Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Nagendrababu V, Azevedo B, Dummer PMH, Neelakantan P

Int Endod J, 2020 Jan;53(1):36-52.
PMID: 31454086 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13210

AIM: To report the most common terminology used in titles of scientific papers published in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) and Journal of Endodontics (JOE) between 1980 and 2019 and to identify the most-cited papers in these journals.
METHODOLOGY: The Web of Science database was searched to retrieve all the manuscripts published in the IEJ and JOE between 1980 and 2019. The articles were analysed using the VOS viewer software and the terms within the titles extracted. The top-10 terms were categorized according to the number of occurrences and the decade of publication. Maps were created using the text data for each decade of publication. Classic papers were identified when the number of citations was >400. During the same period of time, highly cited studies were identified including the authors, institutions and countries associated with these papers.
RESULTS: Terms such as canal, molar and periapical lesion were the most commonly used in titles between 1980 and 1999. The terms instruments, expression, case report and cell were the most often terms used between 2000 and 2019. During the last 10 years, an increase in the number of reviews and papers on cone beam computed tomography occurred. The organizations with the largest number of citations in each decade were University of São Paulo, University College London, Loma Linda University and United States Army. The country with the largest number of citations and greatest number of top 10 and top 100 manuscripts was the United States. A paper had to be associated with more than 167 citations to be included in the top-100 most-cited list; at least 14 papers met the criteria to be categorized as a citation classic (>400 citations).
CONCLUSION: While many diverse areas of endodontics have been explored in the last 40 years within the IEJ and JOE, only a relatively few topics are highly cited and can be considered as classics.
Fulltext Citation Classics on Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

Arshad AI, Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Alam MK, Asif JA, Mahmood Z, et al.

Eur J Dent, 2020 Feb;14(1):128-143.
PMID: 32189321 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1703419

OBJECTIVE: A systematic search was performed for the identification and analysis of the 100 most often cited articles on dental caries and to highlight the changing trends in the field of dentistry over time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through "All Databases." Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description.
RESULTS: The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =-0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.
Glossary for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Nagendrababu V, Dilokthornsakul P, Jinatongthai P, Veettil SK, Pulikkotil SJ, Duncan HF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Feb;53(2):232-249.
PMID: 31520403 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13217

A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub-optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed.
Application of a new system for classifying tooth, root and canal morphology in the primary dentition

Ahmed HMA, Musale PK, El Shahawy OI, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Jan;53(1):27-35.
PMID: 31390075 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13199

Knowledge of root and canal morphology is essential for the effective practice of root canal treatment. Paediatric endodontics aims to preserve fully functional primary teeth in the dental arch; however, pulpectomy procedures in bizarre and tortuous canals encased in roots programmed for physiologic resorption are unique challenges. A new coding system for classifying the roots and main canals (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12685), accessory canals (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12800) and developmental anomalies (https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12867) has been introduced recently. This paper discusses challenges for describing root and canal morphology in primary teeth and describes the potential application of the new classification system for root canals in the primary dentition.
Is articaine more effective than lidocaine in patients with irreversible pulpitis? An umbrella review

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Whitworth J, Nekoofar MH, Pulikkotil SJ, Veettil SK, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 Feb;53(2):200-213.
PMID: 31491042 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13215

BACKGROUND: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
AIM: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment.
DATA SOURCE: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.
RESULTS: Five systematic reviews with meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as 'high' quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions.
LIMITATIONS: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine.
Guidelines for reporting the quality of clinical case reports in Endodontics: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Chong BS, McCabe P, Shah PK, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Jun;52(6):775-778.
PMID: 30586165 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13067

Case reports are used to communicate interesting, new or rare condition/s, innovative treatment approaches or novel techniques. Apart from informing readers, such information has the potential to contribute towards further scientific studies and the development of newer management modalities. In that context, it is important that case reports are presented accurately and deliver all the necessary and pertinent information to the reader. Reporting guidelines are used to inform authors of the quality standards required to ensure their manuscripts are accurate, complete and transparent. The aim of this project is to develop and disseminate new guidelines - Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE). The primary aim is to aid authors when constructing case reports in the field of Endodontics to ensure the highest possible reporting standards are adopted. The project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee comprising six additional members. Subsequently, a five-phase consensus process will be used. The steering committee will develop the PRICE guidelines (PRICE checklist and flow chart) by identifying relevant items (quality standards) derived from the CAse REport guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles, focussing on the content of case reports. Following this, the steering committee will identify a PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members including academicians, practitioners, and members of the public. The individual items (components) of the PRICE checklist will be evaluated by the PDG based on a 9-point Likert scale. Only items scored between 7 and 9 by 70% or more members will be included in the draft checklist. The Delphi process will be continued until a consensus is reached and a final set of items agreed by the PDG members. Following this, a PRICE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) will be formed with 20 members to achieve a final consensus. The final consensus-based checklist and flow chart will be evaluated and approved by selected members of the PDG and PFMG. The approved PRICE guidelines will be published in relevant journals and disseminated via contacts in academic institutions and national endodontic societies, as well as being presented at scientific/clinical meetings.
Animal testing: a re-evaluation of what it means to Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Kishen A, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2019 Sep;52(9):1253-1254.
PMID: 31407362 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13137
Improving the design, execution, reporting and clinical translation of laboratory-based studies in Endodontology

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1089.
PMID: 31297848 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13122
Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) guidelines: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Pulikkotil SJ, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Jul;52(7):974-978.
PMID: 30702139 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13087

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision-making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five-stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre-meeting activities, face-to-face consensus meeting, post-meeting activities and post-publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9-point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders.
Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2019 Sep;52(9):1290-1296.
PMID: 30985938 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13125

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.
PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Jun;54(6):848-857.
PMID: 33450080 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13477

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.
PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JAP, Priya E, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Jun;54(6):858-886.
PMID: 33492704 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13481

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).
Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review

Jakovljevic A, Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Jacimovic J, Milasin J, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Oct;53(10):1374-1386.
PMID: 32648971 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13364

BACKGROUND: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.
METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.
DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.
Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Nagendrababu V, Abbott PV, Pulikkotil SJ, Veettil SK, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2021 Mar;54(3):331-342.
PMID: 33040335 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13428

BACKGROUND: The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2 = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.
Glossary for randomized clinical trials

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Pulikkotil SJ, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2021 Mar;54(3):354-365.
PMID: 33089501 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13434

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials.
PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1491-1515.
PMID: 33982298 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13565

Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest-quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer-review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory-based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer-reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer-review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart.
PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus-based development

Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1482-1490.
PMID: 33938010 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13542

Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer-review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well-documented consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/).
Application of a new system for classifying root and canal anatomy in studies involving micro-computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography: Explanation and elaboration

Ahmed HMA, Ibrahim N, Mohamad NS, Nambiar P, Muhammad RF, Yusoff M, et al.

Int Endod J, 2021 Jul;54(7):1056-1082.
PMID: 33527452 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13486

Adequate knowledge and accurate characterization of root and canal anatomy is an essential prerequisite for successful root canal treatment and endodontic surgery. Over the years, an ever-increasing body of knowledge related to root and canal anatomy of the human dentition has accumulated. To correct deficiencies in existing systems, a new coding system for classifying root and canal morphology, accessory canals and anomalies has been introduced. In recent years, micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) have been used extensively to study the details of root and canal anatomy in extracted teeth and within clinical settings. This review aims to discuss the application of the new coding system in studies using micro-CT and CBCT, provide a detailed guide for appropriate characterization of root and canal anatomy and to discuss several controversial issues that may appear as potential limitations for proper characterization of roots and canals.
Five decades of the International Endodontic Journal: Bibliometric overview 1967-2020

Khan AS, Ur Rehman S, Ahmad S, AlMaimouni YK, Alzamil MAS, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2021 Oct;54(10):1819-1839.
PMID: 34196006 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13595

AIM: The International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) has served as a platform for research and clinical practice in Endodontics since 1967. This study provides a bibliographic analysis and overview of the publications that have appeared in the IEJ from 1967 to 2020.
METHODOLOGY: A literature search was performed in Elsevier's Scopus database to locate all the publications of the International Endodontic Journal. Various bibliometric software packages including the open-source visualization software Gephi and Biblioshiny (version 2.0) were employed for data visualization and analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 3739 records with citation and bibliographic details were selected and retrieved to allow a bibliometric analysis to be performed. The bibliometric analysis indicates that the IEJ has grown both in terms of productivity and influence. Over time, the journal has been associated with an increase in the number of manuscripts published and the citations they have attracted, but with minor downward fluctuations in citations in the last few years. Bibliographic coupling of the IEJ articles revealed that the major research themes published in the journal include 'endodontics', 'root canal treatment', 'calcium hydroxide', 'apical periodontitis', 'mineral trioxide aggregate', 'microbiology', 'cyclic fatigue', 'cone-beam computed tomography' and 'micro-computed tomography'. Authors affiliated to institutions in the UK were the major contributors to the journal and were linked with other countries such as Brazil, USA and Malaysia. The largest number of publications were from the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
CONCLUSION: The IEJ is one of the leading journals in Endodontology and has been providing a platform for innovative research and clinical reports for more than 50 years. Publications have been associated with a wide range of authors, institutions and countries around the world.
A new system for classifying root and root canal morphology

Ahmed HMA, Versiani MA, De-Deus G, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2017 Aug;50(8):761-770.
PMID: 27578418 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12685

Knowledge of root and root canal morphology is a prerequisite for effective nonsurgical and surgical endodontic treatments. The external and internal morphological features of roots are variable and complex, and several classifications have been proposed to define the various types of canal configurations that occur commonly. More recently, improvements in nondestructive digital image systems, such as cone-beam and micro-computed tomography, as well as the use of magnification in clinical practice, have increased the number of reports on complex root canal anatomy. Importantly, using these newer techniques, it has become apparent that it is not possible to classify many root canal configurations using the existing systems. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new classification system that can be adapted to categorize root and root canal configurations in an accurate, simple and reliable manner that can be used in research, clinical practice and training.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links