Displaying all 12 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. 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.

  2. Bhatia S, Nagendrababu V, Peters OA, Fawzy A, Daood U
    Sci Rep, 2021 04 27;11(1):9027.
    PMID: 33907252 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-88570-4
    To evaluate structural profiles and mechanical behaviour of WaveOne Gold (WOG), Twisted File Adaptive (TFA) and XP-endo shaper (XPS) instruments after root canal preparation. Standardized in vitro shaping was performed in presence of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. File morphology was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy; X-ray diffraction analysis was performed before and after use along with Raman spectroscopy. Nanoindentation was carried out to characterize surface topography. Ni2+ release was measured at 1, 3, 5 and 7 days. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis was done before and after use. After allocating scan line shifts like in WOG, mechanical deformation was shown using first order polynomials. XPS file system showed minimal grooves on surface. SEM of WOG instrument showed scraping surface defects. Hardness varied from 8.11 ± 0.99 GPa in TFA system to 6.7 ± 1.27 GPa and 4.06 ± 4.1 GPa in XPS and WOG. Ni2+ concentration from WOG was 171.2 μg/L. Raman peak at 540-545 cm-1 is attributed to Cr2O3. High resolution of Ti 2p spectrum show distinctive peaks with binding energies dominating in WOG, XPS and TFA file system. XRD exhibited NiTi phases with diffraction peaks. WOG files showed more surface deterioration and less passive layer formation as compared to TFA and XPS systems.
  3. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1089.
    PMID: 31297848 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13122
  4. Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Sultan OS, Jayaraman J, Peters OA
    J Endod, 2018 Jun;44(6):903-913.
    PMID: 29602531 DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.02.013
    INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in endodontics.

    METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles in the electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility and data extraction. SRs and MAs on interventional studies with a minimum of 2 therapeutic strategies in endodontics were included in this SR. Methodologic and reporting quality were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cohen kappa statistic. Statistical analysis with the level of significance at P 

  5. Ahmed HMA, Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Peters OA, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2023 Jul;56(7):788-791.
    PMID: 37300405 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13918
  6. Saxena K, Ann CM, Azwar MABM, Banavar SR, Matinlinna J, Peters OA, et al.
    Dent Mater, 2024 Mar 14.
    PMID: 38490919 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.02.010
    OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the ability of strontium fluoride on bond strength and enamel integrity after incorporation within orthodontic adhesive system as a delivery vehicle.

    METHODS: Experimental orthodontic adhesive system Transbond™ XT were modified with 1% Sr2+, 0.5% SrF2, 1% strontium, 0.5% Sr2+, 1% F-, 0.5% F-, and no additions were control. Mixing of formulation was monitored using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Small-molecule drug-discovery suite was used to gain insights into Sr2+, F-, and SrF2 binding. Shear bond testing was performed after 6-months of ageing. Enamel blocks were cut, and STEM pictures were recorded. Specimens were indented to evaluate elastic modulus. Raman microscope was used to collect Raman spectra and inspected using a scanning electron microscope. Crystal structural analysis was performed using X-ray diffraction. Effect of material on cellular proliferation was determined. Confocal was performed to evaluate the effect of formulation on biofilms.

    RESULTS: FTIR of modified adhesives depicted peak changes within range due to various functional groups existing within samples. TEM represented structurally optimized hexagonal unit-cell of hydroxyapatite. Mean shear bond strength is recorded highest for Transbond XT with 1% SrF2. Dead bacterial percentage appeared higher in 0.5% SrF2 and 1% F- specimens. Crystal lengths showed an increase in 0.5% and 1% SrF2 specimens. Phase contrast within TEM images showed a union of 0.5% SrF2 crystal with enamel crystal with higher elastic modulus and highly mineralized crystalline hydroxyapatite. Intensity of ν1 PO43- and ν1 CO32- along with carbonate - / ν1PO43- ratio displayed good association with strontium fluoride. The formulation showed acceptable cell biocompatibility (p 

  7. 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.
  8. Daood U, Bapat RA, Sidhu P, Ilyas MS, Khan AS, Mak KK, et al.
    Dent Mater, 2021 10;37(10):1511-1528.
    PMID: 34420798 DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.08.001
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current project was to study the antimicrobial efficacy of a newly developed irrigant, k21/E against E. faecalis biofilm.

    METHODS: Root canals were instrumented and randomly divided into the following groups: irrigation with saline, 6% NaOCl (sodium hypochlorite), 6% NaOCl+2% CHX (Chlorhexidine), 2% CHX, 0.5% k21/E (k21 - quaternary ammonium silane) and 1% k21/E. E. faecalis were grown (3-days) (1×107CFU mL-1), treated, and further cultured for 11-days. Specimens were subjected to SEM, confocal and Raman analysis and macrophage vesicles characterized along with effect of lipopolysaccharide treatment. 3T3 mouse-fibroblasts were cultured for alizarin-red with Sortase-A active sites and Schrödinger docking was performed. TEM analysis of root dentin substrate with matrix metalloproteinases profilometry was also included. A cytotoxic test analysis for cell viability was measured by absorbance of human dental pulp cells after exposure to different irrigant solutions for 24h. The test percentages have been highlighted in Table 1.

    RESULTS: Among experimental groups, irrigation with 0.5% k21/E showed phase separation revealing significant bacterial reduction and lower phenylalanine 1003cm-1 and Amide III 1245cm-1 intensities. Damage was observed on bacterial cell membrane after use of k21/E. No difference in exosomes distribution between control and 0.5%k21/E was observed with less TNFα (*p<0.05) and preferential binding of SrtA. TEM images demonstrated integrated collagen fibers in control and 0.5%k21/E specimens and inner bacterial membrane damage after k21/E treatment. The k21 groups appeared to be biocompatible to the dental pulpal cells grown for 24h.

    SIGNIFICANCE: Current investigations highlight potential advantages of 0.5% k21/E as irrigation solution for root canal disinfection.

  9. 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.
  10. 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/).
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links