MyMedR

Displaying publications 41 - 60 of 68 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

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/).
Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Sultan OS, Jayaraman J, Soh JA, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2019 Feb;52(2):181-192.
PMID: 30099740 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12995

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) up to May 2018. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessed the risk of bias (ROB). Any teaching method using TEL was considered as the intervention, and this was compared to traditional methods. The outcome measuring the effectiveness of learning activities was evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model. The four levels of training outcomes are as follows: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) by the random effects model. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Only three studies were assessed as 'low' ROB. A meta-analysis could not be performed in the domains of Reaction and Behaviour. No significant difference was observed in knowledge gain (Learning domain) between TEL and traditional methods (SMD, 0.14 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.39) I2 = 62.7%). Similarly, no difference was observed in performance (Behaviour domain). A variable response was found in attitude (Reaction domain). From the available evidence, it can be concluded that TEL is equally as effective as traditional learning methods.
Association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment in adults: an umbrella review

Nagendrababu V, Segura-Egea JJ, Fouad AF, Pulikkotil SJ, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):455-466.
PMID: 31721243 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13253

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear.
AIM: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment.
DATA SOURCE: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as 'medium' quality.
LIMITATIONS: Only two systematic reviews included a meta-analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor.
PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

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

Int Endod J, 2020 May;53(5):619-626.
PMID: 32090342 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13285

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face-to-Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines.
A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory 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):1090-1095.
PMID: 30908638 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13123

Laboratory-based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory-based articles submitted for publication fail the peer-review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well-conducted laboratory-based articles are peer-reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named-'Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology' (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face-to-face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically.
PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

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.
Research that matters: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):437-439.
PMID: 32170984 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13272
Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): guiding authors to identify and correct reporting deficiencies in their manuscripts prior to peer review

Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Chong BS, Priya E, Duncan HF, Rôças IN, et al.

Int Endod J, 2020 May;53(5):589-590.
PMID: 32277771 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13276
PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration

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

Int Endod J, 2020 Jul;53(7):922-947.
PMID: 32221975 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13300

Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org.
PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration

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/.
Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) guidelines: a development protocol

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.
Changes to the 'Author Guidelines' for Case Reports and Randomized Trials submitted to the International Endodontic Journal

Nagendrababu V, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2020 Jul;53(7):885-886.
PMID: 32533798 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13309
Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: A development protocol

Nagendrababu V, Abbott PV, Boutsioukis C, Duncan HF, Faggion CM, Kishen A, et al.

Int Endod J, 2022 Jan 18.
PMID: 35043398 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13682

High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.
Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

Nagendrababu V, Faggion CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PMH

Int Endod J, 2022 Jan 26.
PMID: 35080025 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13693

AIM: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.
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.
PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration

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/).
PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

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.
Effect of root canal irrigation protocols on the dislocation resistance of mineral trioxide aggregate-based materials: A systematic review of laboratory studies

Neelakantan P, Ahmed HMA, Wong MCM, Matinlinna JP, Cheung GSP

Int Endod J, 2018 Aug;51(8):847-861.
PMID: 29377170 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12898

The aim of this systematic review was to address the question: Do different irrigating protocols have an impact on the dislocation resistance of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)-based materials? The review was performed using a well-defined search strategy in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) to include laboratory studies performed between January 1995 and May 2017, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers analysed the papers, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on teeth used, sample size, size of root canal preparation, type of MTA-based material, irrigants, canal filling method, storage method and duration, region of roots and the parameters of push-out testing (slice thickness, plunger dimensions and plunger loading direction), the main results and dislocation resistance values (in MPa). From 255 studies, 27 were included for full-text analysis. Eight papers that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. There was a wide variation in dislocation resistance due to differences in irrigation sequence, time and concentration of irrigants, storage method and duration, and the parameters of push-out bond strength testing. A meta-analysis was not done but qualitative synthesis of the included studies was performed. No definitive conclusion could be drawn to evaluate the effect of irrigation protocols on dislocation resistance of MTA-based materials. Recommendations have been provided for standardized testing methods and reporting of future studies, so as to obtain clinically relevant information and to understand the effects of irrigating protocols on root canal sealers and their interactions with the dentine walls of root canals.
Gaining access through a calcified pulp chamber: a clinical challenge

Ngeow WC, Thong YL

Int Endod J, 1998 Sep;31(5):367-71.
PMID: 9823142

Dental pulp is prone to dystrophic mineralization; this mineralization can be so extensive that the entire root canal system is obliterated. As a result, root canal treatment can become a difficult if not impossible task. This article presents the endodontic management of a tooth with an obliterated pulp chamber and associated with a discharging sinus in a teenage patient. The role of a calcium hydroxide lining to induce mineralization and cause the obliteration of the pulpal space is also discussed.
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.
Clinical procedures and outcome of surgical extrusion, intentional replantation and tooth autotransplantation - a narrative review

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.

Filters

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

External Links