Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 68 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. 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.

  2. Ahmad M, Roy RA, Kamarudin AG
    Int Endod J, 1994 Jan;27(1):26-31.
    PMID: 7806408
    The present study was undertaken to see if there was any variability in the power output of Piezon-Master 400 ultrasonic files when driven using different generators, tranducers and file holders. The displacement amplitude of the oscillating tip of the file in air was used as a measure of the power output. The results showed that there was considerable variability in the power output of Piezon-Master 400 ultrasonic files of similar size and length when driven using different generators, transducers and file holders. In consideration of this, it is recommended that a calibration device be incorporated in the ultrasonic unit so that the operator will have some knowledge of when the unit is working at its maximum efficiency.
  3. Ahmad M, Roy RA, Kamarudin AG, Safar M
    Int Endod J, 1993 Mar;26(2):120-4.
    PMID: 8330934
    The pattern of oscillation of a Piezon-Master 400 ultrasonic file driven by a piezoelectric transducer was studied in air and on water. In addition, the displacement amplitudes of the files were measured. The findings were compared with those observed with the Cavi-Endo unit reported in another study (Ahmad 1969). It was observed that the file vibrated such that a standing wave was formed on the file and it exhibited points of maximum deflection (antinode) and points of minimum deflection (node) with the largest deflection occurring at the apical end. This pattern of oscillation was similar to that exhibited by the Cavi-Endo file which employed a magnetostrictive transducer. However, the displacement amplitudes were very much higher than those exhibited by the Cavi-Endo. It is considered that the 120 degrees angle of the file holder inherent in the Piezon-Master 400 unit and the more effective power transmission with the piezoelectric transducer may have contributed to the large amplitudes.
  4. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Noorani TY, Asif JA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Jun;52(6):803-818.
    PMID: 30667524 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13083
    AIM: To analyse the main characteristics of the top 50 most-cited articles published in the International Endodontic Journal from 1967 to 2018.

    METHODOLOGY: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'All Databases', Elsevier's Scopus, Google Scholar and PubMed Central were searched to retrieve the 50 most-cited articles in the IEJ published from April 1967 to December 2018. The articles were analysed and information including number of citations, year of publication, contributing authors, institutions and countries, study design, study topic, impact factor and keywords was extracted.

    RESULTS: The number of citations of the 50 selected papers varied from 575 to 130 (Web of Science), 656 to164 (Elsevier's Scopus), 1354 to 199 (Google Scholar) and 123 to 3 (PubMed). The majority of papers were published in the year 2001 (n = 7). Amongst 102 authors, the greatest contribution was made by four contributors that included Gulabivala K (n = 4), Ng YL (n = 4), Pitt Ford TR (n = 4) and Wesselink PR (n = 4). The majority of papers originated from the United Kingdom (n = 8) with most contributions from King's College London Dental Institute (UK) and Eastman Dental Hospital, London. Reviews were the most common study design (n = 19) followed by Clinical Research (n = 16) and Basic Research (n = 15). The majority of topics covered by the most-cited articles were Outcome Studies (n = 9), Intracanal medicaments (n = 8), Endodontic microbiology (n = 7) and Canal instrumentation (n = 7). Amongst 76 unique keywords, Endodontics (n = 7), Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) (n = 7) and Root Canal Treatment (n = 7) were the most frequently used.

    CONCLUSION: This is the first study to identify and analyse the top 50 most-cited articles in a specific professional journal within Dentistry. The analysis has revealed information regarding the development of the IEJ over time as well as scientific progress in the field of Endodontology.

  5. Caviedes-Bucheli J, Muñoz-Alvear HD, Lopez-Moncayo LF, Kacharaju KR, Velasquez-Rivera AC, Carlosama-Recalde LA, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2024 May;57(5):576-585.
    PMID: 38294105 DOI: 10.1111/iej.14035
    AIM: The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of five different root canal preparation instruments on Substance P (SP), Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and their receptors expression in healthy human periodontal ligament.

    METHODOLOGY: STROBE guidelines were used to design a study using 60 periodontal ligament samples obtained from healthy lower premolars where extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons. Prior to extraction 40 of these premolars were equally divided into four groups and root canals were prepared using different systems: Mtwo, Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V. Ten premolars were prepared with hand files and served as a positive control group. The remaining 10 premolars where extracted without treatment and served as a negative control group. All periodontal ligament samples were processed to measure the expression of SP, CGRP and their receptors by radioimmunoassay. Kruskal-Wallis and Duncan tests were performed to determine statistically significant differences between the groups for each variable.

    RESULTS: Greater expression of all the peptides measured were found in the hand-file preparation group, followed by the Reciproc Blue, Mtwo, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V groups. The lower SP, CGRP and their receptors values were for the intact teeth control group. Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences amongst groups (p 

  6. Karobari MI, Noorani TY, Halim MS, Dummer PMH, Ahmed HMA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Jun;52(6):917-919.
    PMID: 31074504 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13106
  7. Saber SEDM, Ahmed MHM, Obeid M, Ahmed HMA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Mar;52(3):267-278.
    PMID: 30225932 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13016
    AIM: To investigate the number of roots and root canal configurations using two coding systems and the root canal diverging and merging levels in extracted maxillary premolars in an Egyptian subpopulation using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

    METHODOLOGY: A total of 700 maxillary premolars were examined using CBCT in an Egyptian subpopulation. The number of roots was identified, and root canal configurations were classified according to Vertucci's classification and a new system for classifying root and canal morphology. In addition, the position where roots bifurcated and the levels where canals merged or diverged were identified. Fisher's exact test and independent t-test were used for statistical analysis, and the level of significance was set at 0.05 (P = 0.05).

    RESULTS: More than half of maxillary first premolars were double-rooted, and the majority of maxillary second premolars were single-rooted (P 

  8. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):437-439.
    PMID: 32170984 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13272
  9. Ahmed HMA, Versiani MA, De-Deus G, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2018 Oct;51(10):1182-1183.
    PMID: 30191599 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12928
  10. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Fouad AF, Kirkevang LL, Parashos P, Pigg M, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Sep;53(9):1199-1203.
    PMID: 32365401 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13318
    Observational studies have a significant role in establishing the prevalence and incidence of diseases in populations, as well as determining the benefits and risks associated with health-related interventions. Observational studies principally encompass cohort, case-control, case series and cross-sectional designs. Inadequate reporting of observational studies is likely to have a negative impact on decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice; however, no reporting guidelines have been published for observational studies in Endodontics. The aim of this project is to develop reporting guidelines for authors when creating manuscripts describing observational studies in the field of Endodontology in an attempt to improve the quality of publications. The new guidelines for observational studies will be named: 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE)'. A steering committee was formed by the project leaders (PD, VN) to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The steering committee will review and adapt items from the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as identify new items that add value to Endodontics. The steering committee will create a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG), consisting of 30 members across the globe to review and refine the draft checklist items and flowchart. The items will be assessed by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PROBE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) made up of 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. After receiving feedback from the PFMG, the steering committee will pilot and finalize the guidelines. The approved PROBE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, and be presented at national and international conferences. The PROBE checklist and flowchart will be available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontics (PRIDE) website: www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. The PROBE steering committee encourages clinicians, researchers, editors and peer reviewers to provide feedback on the PROBE guidelines to inform the steering group when the guidelines are updated.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Decurcio DA, Lim E, Chaves GS, Nagendrababu V, Estrela C, Rossi-Fedele G
    Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1153-1161.
    PMID: 30883828 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13116
    AIM: To compare the educational outcomes using artificial teeth versus extracted teeth for pre-clinical endodontic training.

    DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Trip Database, Web of Science and Open Grey databases were conducted from their inception until November 2018 with no language restriction. Hand searching of most likely relevant journals was performed. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines.

    STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies that compared pre-clinical endodontic training using extracted teeth and artificial teeth were included.

    STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of included studies was appraised by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. The findings were tabulated and summarized according to their outcomes with distinct narrative syntheses.

    RESULTS: Five studies were included. The component studies included 359 operators in total, mainly consisting of undergraduate students (97%, n = 349) and 10 endodontists (3%). Forty-seven per cent (n = 170) operated on artificial teeth only, whilst 19% (n = 67) worked primarily on extracted teeth, with the final treatment outcome being evaluated by independent observers using objective criteria. Operators in two studies (34%, n = 122) used both artificial teeth and ET and compared their experiences in surveys. Regarding technical outcomes, no significant differences between training with artificial teeth and extracted teeth were found, but the performance tended to be better in artificial teeth than extracted teeth. Operators trained solely on artificial teeth appeared to be adequately educated for subsequent root canal treatment (RCT) in the clinical setting.

    LIMITATIONS: Due to the scarcity of research on the topic overall, and the methodological variation between the studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis (meta-analysis).

    CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Based on the available evidence, the use of artificial teeth for pre-clinical endodontic training achieved similar educational outcomes compared to extracted teeth. However, the experiences reported by the operators diverged. Further studies assessing other artificial teeth available in the market testing other RCT procedures are necessary.

  14. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Fouad AF, Kirkevang LL, Parashos P, Pigg M, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2023 Feb 27.
    PMID: 36851874 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13909
    Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).
  15. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Tsesis I, Sathorn C, Pulikkotil SJ, Dharmarajan L, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2019 Mar 19.
    PMID: 30891775 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13118
    An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
  16. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):774-803.
    PMID: 32266988 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13304
    Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.
  17. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):764-773.
    PMID: 32196696 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13294
    In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.
  18. 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.
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links