Displaying publications 21 - 40 of 68 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Chaudhry A, Rashid U, Saif S, Asif JA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Sep;52(9):1297-1316.
    PMID: 31009099 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13131
    AIM: To identify and analyse the main features of the top 100 most-cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in endodontic journals from 1961 to 2018.

    METHODOLOGY: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'All Databases' was used to search and analyse the 100 most frequently cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses having 'randomized', 'randomised', 'randomized controlled', 'randomised controlled', 'randomized controlled trial', 'randomized controlled trials', 'clinical trial', 'systematic', 'systematic review', 'meta-analysis', and 'meta-analyses' in the title section. The 'International Endodontic Journal', 'Journal of Endodontics', 'Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology', 'Australian Endodontic Journal', 'Endodontics & Dental Traumatology', 'Endo-Endodontic Practice Today' and 'European Endodontic Journal' were included in the publication name section. After ranking the articles in a descending order based on their citation counts, each article was cross-matched with the citation counts in Elsevier's Scopus and Google Scholar. The articles were analysed, and information on citation counts, citation density, year of publication, contributing authors, institutions and countries, journal of publication, study design, topic of the article and keywords was extracted.

    RESULTS: The citation counts of the 100 most-cited articles varied from 235 to 20 (Web of Science), 276 to 17 (Scopus) and 696 to 1 (Google Scholar). The year in which the top 100 articles were published was 2010 (n = 13). Among 373 authors, the greatest number of articles was associated with three individuals namely Reader A (n = 5), Beck M (n = 5) and Kvist T (n = 5). Most of the articles originated from the United States (n = 24) with the greatest contribution from Ohio State University (USA) (n = 5). Randomized controlled trials were the most frequent study design (n = 45) followed by systematic reviews (n = 30) with outcome studies of root canal treatment being the major topic (n = 35). The Journal of Endodontics published the largest number of included articles (n = 70) followed by the International Endodontic Journal (n = 27). Among 259 unique keywords, meta-analysis (n = 23) and systematic review (n = 23) were the most frequently used.

    CONCLUSION: This study has revealed that year of publication had no obvious impact on citation count. The bibliometric analysis highlighted the quantity and quality of research, and the evolution of scientific advancements made in the field of Endodontology over time. Articles before 1996, that is prior to the CONSORT statement that encouraged authors to include specific terms in the title and keywords, may not have been included in this electronic search.

  4. 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.
  5. 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/).
  6. 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.

  7. Shah PK, Duncan HF, Abdullah D, Tomson PL, Murray G, Friend TM, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Nov;53(11):1569-1580.
    PMID: 32748456 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13377
    AIM: To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods.

    METHODOLOGY: A cohort (n = 206) of fourth-year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Group A and B). The participants assessed six test endodontic cases using anonymized versions of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) case difficulty assessment form (AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines, 2006) and EndoApp, a web-based CDA tool. Group A (n = 107) used the AAE form for assessment of the first three cases, followed by EndoApp for the latter. Group B (n = 99) used EndoApp for the initial three cases and switched to the AAE form for the remainder. Data were collected online and analysed to assess participants' knowledge reinforcement and agreement with the recommendation generated. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way mixed model anova, Cohen's Kappa (κ) and independent t-tests, with the levels of significance set at P 

  8. Plotino G, Abella Sans F, Duggal MS, Grande NM, Krastl G, Nagendrababu V, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Dec;53(12):1636-1652.
    PMID: 32869292 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13396
    Surgical extrusion is defined as the procedure in which the remaining tooth structure is repositioned at a more coronal/supragingival position in the same socket in which the tooth was located originally. Intentional replantation is defined as the deliberate extraction of a tooth and after evaluation of root surfaces, endodontic manipulation and repair, placement of the tooth back into its original position. Tooth autotransplantation is defined as the transplantation of an unerupted or erupted tooth in the same individual, from one site to another extraction site or a new surgically prepared socket. The advent of titanium implant rehabilitation has reduced the use of these treatments in day-by-day clinical practice; however, the re-emerging trend to conserve and preserve natural sound tissues has led to a rediscovery of these treatments. All three distinct surgical methods are closely related, as they act to treat teeth that cannot be predictably treated using other more conventional procedures in endodontics, periodontics and restorative dentistry. Furthermore, these procedures share the same treatment approach and include the atraumatic extraction of a tooth, visual inspection of the tooth/root and its subsequent replantation. The clinical procedures for surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation treatment have undergone several changes in recent years, and currently, there are no clear clinical treatment protocols/guidelines available. The clinician should be aware of the outcome of these treatments. Hence, the aim of this narrative review is to provide the background, clinical procedures and outcomes of surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. Suresh N, Nagendrababu V, Koteeswaran V, Haritha JS, Swetha SD, Varghese A, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2021 Feb;54(2):198-209.
    PMID: 32976660 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13416
    AIM: This randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial evaluated the effect of oral premedication of piroxicam, prednisolone, dexamethasone or placebo on postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment in teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis.

    METHODOLOGY: The trial is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines. The protocol was registered at the clinical trial registry (India) (CTRI/2019/06/019818). In total, 160 patients, assigned to four groups, received orally either 20 mg piroxicam, 20 mg prednisolone, 4 mg dexamethasone or a placebo 60 min before root canal treatment. Patients recorded their postoperative pain intensity at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Intergroup comparison was performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests with post hoc analysis using Dunns test. Incidence of pain was analysed using chi-square tests. A P value  0.05). One patient in the piroxicam group reported gastritis, whereas no adverse effects were recorded in other groups.

    CONCLUSION: Preoperative oral administration of a single dose of 4 mg dexamethasone, 20 mg piroxicam or 20 mg prednisolone reduced the incidence and severity of postoperative pain following single-visit root canal treatment compared to a placebo in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis up to 24 h. The odds of postoperative pain at 24 h for patients premedicated with 4 mg dexamethasone or 20 mg piroxicam or 20 mg prednisolone were 5.3 times, 3.4 times and 2.5 times less compared to the placebo, respectively.

  12. 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.
  13. 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/).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. Islam R, Toida Y, Chen F, Tanaka T, Inoue S, Kitamura T, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2021 Oct;54(10):1902-1914.
    PMID: 34096634 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13587
    AIM: To evaluate the dental pulp response to a novel mineral trioxide aggregate containing phosphorylated pullulan (MTAPPL) in rats after direct pulp capping.

    METHODS: Ninety-six cavities were prepared in the maxillary first molars of 56 male Wistar rats. The dental pulps were intentionally exposed and randomly divided into four groups according to the application of pulp capping materials: MTAPPL; phosphorylated pullulan (PPL); a conventional MTA (Nex-Cem MTA, NCMTA; positive control); and Super-Bond (SB; negative control). All cavities were restored with SB and observed for pulpal responses at 1-, 3-, 7- and 28-day intervals using a histological scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni's correction, and the level of significance was set at 0.05. DMP1 and CD34 antigen were used to evaluate odontoblast differentiation and pulpal vascularization, respectively.

    RESULTS: On day 1, mild inflammatory cells were present in MTAPPL and NCMTA groups; fewer inflammatory cells were present in the PPL, whereas SB was associated with a mild-to-moderate inflammatory response. A significant difference was observed between PPL and SB (p  .05). SB exhibited incomplete mineralized tissue barriers, significantly different from NCMTA, MTAPPL and PPL (p 

  17. 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.
  18. Ahmed HMA, Neelakantan P, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2018 Feb;51(2):164-176.
    PMID: 28635100 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12800
    Thorough knowledge of anatomical complexities of the root canal system has a direct impact on the effectiveness of canal preparation and filling, and is an essential prerequisite for successful root canal treatment. A wide range of complex variations in root canal anatomy exists, including root canal configuration type, developmental anomalies and minor canal morphology such as accessory canals and apical deltas. Accessory canals and apical deltas have been associated with pulp disease, primary canal infection, canal reinfection and post-treatment disease. The current definitions of accessory canal anatomy are not standardized and potentially confusing. Given their role in endodontic disease and their impact on treatment outcomes, there is a need to have a simple classification of their anatomy to provide an accurate description of their position and path from the canal to the external surface of the root. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new system for classifying accessory canal morphology for use in research, clinical practice and training.
  19. 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
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links