METHODS: Deidentified CBCT images were scanned retrospectively, and the ones including bilateral M1Ms were included in the study. A written and video instruction program explaining the protocol to be followed step-by-step was provided to all observers to calibrate them. The CBCT imaging screening procedure consisted of evaluating three planes (coronal, sagittal, and axial) after a 3-dimensional alignment of the long axis of the root(s). The presence of an MMC in M1Ms (yes/no) was identified and recorded.

RESULTS: In total, 6304 CBCTs, representing 12,608 M1Ms, were evaluated. A significant difference was found between countries (P  .05) or between genders (odds ratio= 1.07, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.27; P > .05). As for the age groups, no significant differences were found (P > .05).

METHODS: The questionnaire comprised 3 sections. The first part comprised questions regarding demographic features. The second part comprised questions on how treatment plans change according to factors such as nature, location, number and size of the pulp exposure, and patients' age. The third part composed of questions on the common materials and techniques used in DPC. To estimate the effect size, the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a meta-analysis software.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and practices of endodontists and paediatric dentists regarding RET.

DESIGN: A survey was conducted among endodontists and paediatric dentists from 13 countries. A number of factors were evaluated, including frequency of RET application, followed guidelines, disinfection techniques, intracanal medication type, scaffold type, preferred coronal seal material, and follow-up period.

RESULTS: Among the 1394 respondents, 853 (61.2%) and 541 (38.8%) were endodontists and paediatric dentists, respectively. Almost half (43%) of participants have not performed RET yet. The American Association of Endodontics guideline (47.3%) was selected as the primary source for the clinical protocol. The most frequently selected irrigant solution was 1.5%-3% NaOCl at the first (26.1%) and second (13.6%) sessions. A blood clot (68.7%) and MTA (61.9%) were the most frequently selected scaffold type and coronal barrier. Most participants preferred a 6-month follow-up period.

METHOD: An 11-question survey was distributed to dentists across 21 countries via different platforms. The survey comprised two sections: the first included five questions aimed at gathering demographic information, while the second consisted of six questions focusing on participants' practices related to the repair of composite or amalgam restorations A meta-analysis was employed to ascertain the pooled odds ratio of repairing versus replacement. The statistical analysis was carried out using the RevMan 5.3 program and forest plots were generated using the same program to visualize the results.

RESULTS: The survey was completed by 3680 dental practitioners. The results indicated a strong tendency to repair defective composite restorations (OR: 14.23; 95 % CI: 7.40, 27.35, p < 0.001). In terms of amalgam, there was a significant tendency to replace the restorations (OR: 0.19; 95 % CI: 0.12, 0.30, p < 0.001). When repairing restorations, the most common protocols were etching with orthophosphoric acid and creating an enamel bevel, regardless of the restorative material used.

CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that there exists a knowledge gap among dental practitioners regarding restoration repair. It is imperative that dental practitioners receive proper education and training on restoration repair, to ensure the usage of adequate protocols and restoration survival.