MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review

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.
Effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment in managing non-traumatic pulpitis associated with spontaneous pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tomson PL, Vilela Bastos J, Jacimovic J, Jakovljevic A, Pulikkotil SJ, Nagendrababu V

Int Endod J, 2023 Oct;56 Suppl 3:355-369.
PMID: 36209498 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13844

BACKGROUND: Pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain can result in debilitating pain. Dogma has existed to offer only have two treatment options, namely root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction, although pulpotomy has always remained a potential treatment modality.
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).
PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration

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/).
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/).