METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42019127021). A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers using a selected search strategy in 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) until January 28, 2019. A further search was performed manually in endodontic journals. Studies investigating or comparing at least 1 shaping property resulting from root canal instrumentation with a glide path or preflaring in human extracted teeth or clinical studies were included.
RESULTS: The literature shows that the definition of glide path and preflaring procedures remains controversial, which requires an elaboration in the American Association of Endodontists' Glossary of Endodontic Terms. After the removal of irrelevant and duplicated articles, 98 articles were included. The impact of glide path preparation and preflaring on working length determination, apical file size determination, canal transportation, separation of endodontic files, shaping time, dentinal microcrack formation, and extrusion of debris was discussed. Because of heterogeneity among the included studies, quantitative synthesis was not performed for most of the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based guideline is needed to define and correlate the basic concepts and current applications of each step of contemporary advancements in root canal instruments. Glide path preparation reduces the risk of debris extrusion, has no influence on the incidence of dentinal crack formation, and improves the preservation of the original canal anatomy. The creation of a glide path may have no impact on Reciproc files (VDW, Munich, Germany) in reaching the full working length. Preflaring increases the accuracy of working length determination. Further randomized clinical trials are required to evaluate the effect of a glide path and preflaring on root canal treatment outcomes.
METHODOLOGY: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.
RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".
CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.
Materials and Methods: Root dentin blocks (n= 60) were randomly divided into 4 groups based on the irrigation regimen: group 1, saline; group 2, 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); group 3, 5.25% NaOCl followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); group 4, same as group 3 followed by 2% chlorhexidine (CHX). The hydrophobicity ofS. epidermidisto root dentin was calculated by cell surface hydrophobicity while the adherence was observed by fluorescence microscopy, and bacteria were quantified using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health). Statistical analysis of the data was done using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-WhitneyUtest (p= 0.05).
Results: The hydrophobicity and adherence ofS. epidermidisto dentin were significantly increased after irrigating with group 3 (NaOCl-EDTA) (p< 0.05), whereas in group 4 (NaOCl-EDTA-CHX) both hydrophobicity and adherence were significantly reduced (p< 0.05).
Conclusions: The adherence ofS. epidermidisto dentin was influenced differently by root canal irrigants. Final irrigation with CHX reduces the bacterial adherence and may impact biofilm formation.
METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
METHODS: Three databases were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published up until September 2017. Retrieved RCTs were evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the success rate of IANB anesthesia. Meta-analytic estimates (risk ratio [RR] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) performed using a random effects model and publication bias determined using funnel plot analysis were assessed. Random errors were evaluated with trial sequential analyses, and the quality of evidence was appraised using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (N = 1034) were included. Eight studies had low risk of bias. Statistical analysis of good-quality RCTs showed a significant beneficial effect of any NSAID in increasing the anesthetic success of IANBs compared with placebo (RR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.55-2.38). Subgroup analyses showed a similar beneficial effect for ibuprofen, diclofenac, and ketorolac (RR = 1.83 [95% CI, 1.43-2.35], RR = 2.56 [95% CI, 1.46-4.50], and RR = 2.07 [95% CI, 1.47-2.90], respectively). Dose-dependent ibuprofen >400 mg/d (RR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.39-2.45) was shown to be effective; however, ibuprofen ≤400 mg/d showed no association (RR = 1.78; 95% CI, 0.90-3.55). TSA confirmed conclusive evidence for a beneficial effect of NSAIDs for IANB premedication. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach did not reveal any concerns regarding the quality of the results.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral premedication with NSAIDs and ibuprofen (>400 mg/d) increased the anesthetic success of IANBs in patients with irreversible pulpitis.
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).
METHODS: Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I2 = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years.
DISCUSSION: Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.
CONCLUSION: This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).
METHODS: Root canals were instrumented and randomly divided into the following groups: irrigation with saline, 6% NaOCl (sodium hypochlorite), 6% NaOCl+2% CHX (Chlorhexidine), 2% CHX, 0.5% k21/E (k21 - quaternary ammonium silane) and 1% k21/E. E. faecalis were grown (3-days) (1×107CFU mL-1), treated, and further cultured for 11-days. Specimens were subjected to SEM, confocal and Raman analysis and macrophage vesicles characterized along with effect of lipopolysaccharide treatment. 3T3 mouse-fibroblasts were cultured for alizarin-red with Sortase-A active sites and Schrödinger docking was performed. TEM analysis of root dentin substrate with matrix metalloproteinases profilometry was also included. A cytotoxic test analysis for cell viability was measured by absorbance of human dental pulp cells after exposure to different irrigant solutions for 24h. The test percentages have been highlighted in Table 1.
RESULTS: Among experimental groups, irrigation with 0.5% k21/E showed phase separation revealing significant bacterial reduction and lower phenylalanine 1003cm-1 and Amide III 1245cm-1 intensities. Damage was observed on bacterial cell membrane after use of k21/E. No difference in exosomes distribution between control and 0.5%k21/E was observed with less TNFα (*p<0.05) and preferential binding of SrtA. TEM images demonstrated integrated collagen fibers in control and 0.5%k21/E specimens and inner bacterial membrane damage after k21/E treatment. The k21 groups appeared to be biocompatible to the dental pulpal cells grown for 24h.
SIGNIFICANCE: Current investigations highlight potential advantages of 0.5% k21/E as irrigation solution for root canal disinfection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PDLSCs were treated with 0, 5, 10 and 20 µg/mL of Escherichia coli LPS. At 48 and 96 h, total cell numbers of control and LPS treated PDLSCs were counted by haemocytometer under a microscope. The VEGF concentration in the conditioned media of the PDLSCs was measured by ELISA.
RESULTS: Rate of cell proliferation of PDLSCs decreased significantly in all LPS treated groups at both 48 h and 96 h except for the group treated with 5 µg/mL of LPS at 48 h. At both 48 and 96 h, VEGF secretion from PDLSCs was reduced significantly at all three LPS concentrations. There was no statistically significant difference in cell proliferation and the amount of VEGF secretion of PDLSCs among the groups treated with different LPS concentrations. No statistically significant change was found in cell proliferation of LPS treated PDLSCs over time, whereas VEGF secretion of PDLSCs was found to have increased significantly with time despite the LPS treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: LPS reduced cell proliferation and VEGF secretion of PDLSCs, suggesting that periodontal pathogens might reduce the capability of PDLSCs in periodontal regeneration. Yet, LPS treated PDLSCs remained viable and VEGF secretion increased significantly over time. Further research is needed to study the potential use of PDLSCs in periodontal regeneration and the relationship of biofilm LPS accumulations.