Displaying publications 41 - 60 of 68 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. 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.
  2. 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/.
  3. Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):731-732.
    PMID: 32396666 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13297
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  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. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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/).
  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. 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.
  16. 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/).
  17. 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.

  18. 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 

Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links