MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Discolouration potential of endodontic procedures and materials: a review

Ahmed HM, Abbott PV

Int Endod J, 2012 Oct;45(10):883-97.
PMID: 22621247 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02071.x

Advances in endodontic materials and techniques are at the forefront of endodontic research. Despite continuous improvements, tooth discolouration, especially in anterior teeth, is considered an undesirable consequence following endodontic treatment as it creates a range of aesthetic problems. This article aims to discuss the intrinsic and internalized tooth discolouration caused by endodontic procedures, and to address the discolouration potential of materials used during root canal treatment, including root canal irrigants, intra-canal medicaments, endodontic and post-endodontic filling materials. In addition, the discolouration patterns caused by combined endodontic and nonendodontic aetiological factors are discussed. The recommended guidelines that should be followed by dental practitioners to prevent and manage tooth discolouration are also outlined.
Fulltext Accessory roots in maxillary molar teeth: a review and endodontic considerations

Ahmed HM, Abbott PV

Aust Dent J, 2012 Jun;57(2):123-31; quiz 248.
PMID: 22624750 DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01678.x

Maxillary molar teeth may have accessory roots. The aim of this paper is to review and discuss the endodontic implications of this anatomical variation. A review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies and reported cases where accessory roots have been recorded in maxillary molar teeth. The results show that although the prevalence of accessory roots in maxillary molar teeth is low, they can exist in all three types of maxillary molar teeth, and they may be located palatally, buccally, mesially or distally. Hence, it is essential that dentists undertaking root canal treatment thoroughly assess all teeth to determine how many roots are present in order to provide the best possible outcome of treatment for the patient.
Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

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.
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.