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.
METHODOLOGY: Dental pulp stem cells from healthy (DPSCs) and carious teeth (DPSCs-CT) were isolated from young donors. Both cell lines were expanded in identical culture conditions and subsequently differentiated towards DAergic-like cells using pre-defined dopaminergic cocktails. The dopaminergic efficiencies were evaluated both at gene and protein as well as at secretome levels.
RESULTS: The efficiency of DPSCs-CT to differentiate into DAergic-like cells was not equivalent to that of DPSCs. This was further reflected in both gene and protein generation whereby key neuronal markers such as nestin, NURR1 and beta-III-tubulin were expressed significantly lower as compared to differentiated DPSCs (P
METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT).
CONCLUSIONS: All imaging techniques had similar specificity and positive predictive values. Additional parallax views increased the diagnostic accuracy of PR. CBCT had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy in detecting AP compared to PR, using human histopathological findings as a reference standard.
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
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.
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.
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.
METHODS: One PowerPoint presentation describing two classification systems for root canal morphology (Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology, 1974 38, 456 and its supplemental configurations, International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761) was delivered to final year undergraduate dental students in eight dental schools in Malaysia by two presenters (each presented to four schools). To examine students' feedback on the utility of each system, printed questionnaires consisting of six questions (five multiple choice questions and one open-ended question) were distributed and collected after the lecture. The questionnaire was designed to compare the classification systems in terms of accuracy, practicability, understanding of root canal morphology and recommendation for use in pre-clinical and clinical courses. The exact test was used for statistical analysis, with the level of significance set at 0.05 (P = 0.05).
RESULTS: A total of 382 (out of 447) students participated giving a response rate of 86%. More than 90% of students reported that the new system was more accurate and more practical compared with the Vertucci system (P 0.05). The students' responses for all questions were almost similar for both presenters (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The new system of International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761 for classifying root and canal morphology was favoured by final year undergraduate dental students in Malaysia. The new system has the potential to be included in the undergraduate endodontic curriculum for teaching courses related to root and canal morphology.
METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from nine fresh, unclaimed bodies that were due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP lesions using film and digital PR with a centred view (FP and DP groups); film and digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (FPS and DPS groups). All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.16, 0.37, 0.27 and 0.38 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Both FP and FPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 1.0, whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 0.99. Negative predictive value was 0.36, 0.43, 0.39 and 0.44 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.562 (FP), 0.629 (DP), 0.685 (FPS), 0.6880 (DPS).
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of single digital periapical radiography was significantly better than single film periapical radiography. The inclusion of two additional horizontal (parallax) angulated periapical radiograph images (mesial and distal horizontal angulations) significantly improved detection of apical periodontitis.