Search

Introduction: This study compared the absorbency capacity of paper points (PPs) with positively charged and noncharged polyvinylidene fluoride membranes (PVDFMs) and investigated the ability of PPs and PVDFMs to bind and remove endotoxin., Methods: Three commercially available PPs were compared with PVDFM (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, MA) prototype points. We recorded the initial dry weight for each PP and PVDFM using a digital balance to ±0.0001 precision for absorbency. PPs and PVDFMs were then immersed in deionized water and weighed to obtain the wet weight. The absorbency was calculated with the following formula: percent increase = ([wet weight - dry weight]/dry weight) × 100. For endotoxin removal, we first quantified endotoxin remaining in wells after immersing PPs and PVDFMs in a 24-well plate containing 10 endotoxin units/mL Escherichia coli O55:B5 (Lonza, Walkersville, MD). We then extracted and quantified endotoxin from PPs and PVDFMs. Endotoxin was quantified using the Kinetic-QCL test (Lonza)., Results: The absorbencies for the positively charged and noncharged PVDFMs were higher than the PPs (P < .05), with no difference between them (P > .05). The positively charged PVDFMs removed more endotoxin than the noncharged PVDFMs and the PPs (P < .05). Moreover, the noncharged PVDFMs bound and removed more endotoxin than any PPs (P < .05)., Conclusions: PVDFM prototype points are more absorbent than PPs. Moreover, the positively charged PVDFM points are more effective in binding and removing endotoxin than noncharged PVDFMs and PPs. This study suggests that positively charged PVDFMs with a 0.22-μm pore size could potentially replace PPs used in endodontics., (Copyright © 2021 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this review was to identify and analyze the main characteristics of the 100 most-cited papers in the field of endodontic therapy in primary teeth. A search for the most-cited articles was conducted in the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science 'Core-Collection' (WoS-CC) database up to December 2020. Papers were ranked in descending order, by number of citations, and each paper was matched with the citation count on Scopus and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected the most-cited papers and analyzed it according to the number and density of citations, year and journal of publication, authors, countries and contributing institutions, study design, topic of the paper, and keywords. Spearman's correlation and Poisson regression were used to determine associations between the number of citations and study characteristics. The citation count varied from 15 to 135 (WoS-CC), 8 to 141 (Scopus), and 14 to 317 (Google Scholar). Of the 306 contributing authors, most paper contributions were from Sakai VT, Oliveira TM, and Machado MAAM (5 each). Most of the papers originated from the USA (n=21) and Brazil (n=18). Randomized trials were the most common study design (n=32), and "pulpotomy" was the most frequently used keyword (n=35). Poisson regression showed that the number of citations decreased by 1.5% each year, and increased by 9.7% for each unit of impact factor. This bibliometric analysis highlighted papers, authors, and institutions that have contributed to endodontic therapy in primary teeth. Common terms of interest in this research area was also identified, representing the first bibliometric analysis on this subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors., (© 2024 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Endodontic therapy includes various procedures such as vital pulp therapy, root canal treatment and retreatment, surgical endodontic treatment and regenerative endodontic procedures. Disinfection and tissue repair are crucial for the success of these therapies, necessitating the development of therapeutics that can effectively target microbiota, eliminate biofilms, modulate inflammation and promote tissue repair. However, no current endodontic agents can achieve these goals. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which are sequences of amino acids, have gained attention due to their unique advantages, including reduced susceptibility to drug resistance, broad-spectrum antibacterial properties and the ability to modulate the immune response of the organism effectively. This review systematically discusses the structure, mechanisms of action, novel designs and limitations of AMPs. Additionally, it highlights the efforts made by researchers to overcome peptide shortcomings and emphasizes the potential applications of AMPs in endodontic treatments., (© 2024 The Authors. International Endodontic Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Endodontic Society.)

Scientometric studies play a crucial role in quantitatively assessing the impact and quantity of scholarly articles, providing a basis for policy-making and informed decision-making processes. Given the ongoing transformation within the Saudi scientific community across various domains, it is essential to establish a baseline for high-quality endodontic research. A comprehensive search in the PubMed database, using the keywords ["Saudi" OR "Saudi Arabia"] within the time frame of 2014 to 2021. The screening process involved evaluating the title and abstract of each article, with only those classified as endodontic articles included for analysis in this study. The analysis included factors such as the type of paper, the authors, the citations, and the year of publication. Featuring one or more authors affiliated with a Saudi dental institution, 70 papers were specifically categorized as endodontic papers. The most prevalent type of paper was case reports, accounting for 27 articles (28%), followed by literature reviews with 13 articles (18%). The number of authors ranged from one to ten, with a general trend of increasing publication rates over the years. In terms of citations, only four papers received more than 20 citations, while the majority of papers garnered between one and ten citations. Most articles in the field of endodontics exhibited low-level evidence. Therefore, it is recommended that the quality of research output and evidence be enhanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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/)., (© 2023 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: This study investigated the adoption of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by dentists and endodontists around the world, including their preferences in endodontic CBCT usage., Methodology: An online questionnaire surveyed dental association members in Australia and New Zealand, and endodontic association members in Australia, Britain, Canada, Italy, New Zealand and the USA, about their CBCT training history, considerations in acquisition/interpretation, access to and usage of CBCT, preferred scan interpreter, and preferred endodontic scan settings. Data were analysed with Chi-squared, independent sample t-tests, Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests., Results: Responses from 578 endodontic specialists or postgraduates (Group E) and 185 non-endodontic dentists (Group NE) were included. Continuing professional education (CPE) was the most common source of CBCT training (69.2%). Factors considered in CBCT acquisition/interpretation included beam hardening (75.4%), radiation exposure (61.1%) and patient movement (58.3%). Group E reported higher CBCT usage (90.8%) than Group NE (45.4%, p < .001) and greater workplace access to CBCT (81.1% vs. 25.9%, p < .001). Scans were interpreted by the respondent in most workplace scans (83.3%) and externally taken scans (60.5%); Group E were significantly more likely to interpret themselves than Group NE. Small field of view (83.6%) and high resolution (86.6%) were most preferred as settings for endodontic CBCTs; Group NE were less likely to choose these settings. There were some geographic variations within Group E., Conclusions: CBCT training was most commonly acquired via CPE. Endodontic respondents reported very high CBCT usage and access in the workplace. There are educational implications regarding CBCT limitations, appropriate applications and interpretation., (© 2023 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The ESE previously published quality guidelines for endodontic treatment in 2006; however, there have been significant changes since not only in clinical endodontics but also in consensus and guideline development processes. In the development of the inaugural S3-level clinical practice guidelines (CPG), a comprehensive systematic and methodologically robust guideline consultation process was followed in order to produce evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients presenting with pulpal and apical disease., Aim: To develop an S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease, focusing on diagnosis and the implementation of the treatment approaches required to manage patients presenting with pulpitis and apical periodontitis (AP) with the ultimate goal of preventing tooth loss., Methods: This S3-level CPG was developed by the ESE, with the assistance of independent methodological guidance provided by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and utilizing the GRADE process. A robust, rigorous and transparent process included the analysis of relevant comparative research in 14 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, prior to evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific evidence and expert-based recommendations in a structured consensus process with leading endodontic experts and a broad base of external stakeholders., Results: The S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease describes in a series of clinical recommendations the effectiveness of diagnosing pulpitis and AP, prior to investigating the effectiveness of endodontic treatments in managing those diseases. Therapeutic strategies include the effectiveness of deep caries management in cases with, and without, spontaneous pain and pulp exposure, vital versus nonvital teeth, the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation, irrigation, dressing, root canal filling materials and adjunct intracanal procedures in the management of AP. Prior to treatment planning, the critical importance of history and case evaluation, aseptic techniques, appropriate training and re-evaluations during and after treatment is stressed., Conclusion: The first S3-level CPG in endodontics informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers, other stakeholders and patients on the available and most effective treatments to manage patients with pulpitis and AP in order to preserve teeth over a patient's lifetime, according to the best comparative evidence currently available., (© 2023 The Authors. International Endodontic Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Endodontic Society.)

Background/aims: The Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines were published to help authors produce high-quality case reports. The aim of this study was to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines to appraise a sample of 50 case reports related to dental traumatology that were published before the guidelines were available in order to assess various parameters influencing the reporting quality., Methods: Fifty case reports published between 2015 and 2019 and related to dental traumatology were randomly selected from the PubMed database. Reports were assessed by two independent evaluators using the PRICE checklist. Each item received a score of "1" if the manuscript met all pertinent criteria, "0" if it was not reported, and "0.5" if it was reported insufficiently. "Not Applicable" (NA) was assigned to items that were irrelevant to a specific report. The estimated total PRICE score for each case report was computed by adding all the scores, with a maximum score of 47 minus any "NA" scores. Descriptive and Inferential statistics (Student's t-test and ANOVA) were used for analysis., Results: The percentage of case reports that fully met each applicable criteria ranged from 0% to 100%. The percentage of case reports partially satisfying each applicable criterion varied from 0% to 88%. There was a significant difference in scores for case reports published in journals with an impact factor compared with those without (p = .042). No significant difference was observed between the mean scores that compared the period of publication. There was no significant difference between journals that followed the CARE guidelines and those that did not., Conclusion: Several items within the PRICE 2020 guidelines were either not reported or only partially reported in case reports related to dental traumatology prior to the checklist publication. It is recommended that authors follow the PRICE 2020 guidelines to improve the overall quality of their case reports., (© 2023 The Authors. Dental Traumatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Ocular diseases are sub-diagnosed in bird species, partly because of limited diagnostic methods and lack of reference data. Placement of Schirmer tear test strips in the bottom of the conjunctival sac of birds for tear flow measurement can prove to be difficult, whereas paper tips commonly used for dental procedures may be easier to use, due to a more adequate size and shape. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess and compare tear flow values, using ABC Dental® # 30 color paper tips and TearFloTM Test strips in Red-lored Parrots (Amazona autumnalis) (n = 26). Captive birds of undetermined sex were housed in groups under similar environmental conditions and fed the same diet. All animals were deemed healthy through remote and physical examinations. Average tear flow values of 0.6365 ± 0.032 cm/min and 0.5942 ± 0.032 cm/min were obtained with the Schirmer strips test and the endodontic tips respectively. Lack of difference in observed values between measurement techniques (p = 0.3629) indicates that endodontic tips may be a good alternative for tear flow assessment in Red-lored parrots. In addition, endodontic tips are more cost effective and may be less invasive. This study stresses the need to establish species specific ophthalmic reference values for clinical practice in birds, since differences have been reported even in specimens within the same genus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To identify factors that are predictive of short-term professional and societal impact of research within the specialty of Endodontology and to identify the top-10 articles that achieved the greatest societal impact and describe their characteristics., Methodology: Research articles in the field of Endodontology published in 2019 were eligible for inclusion, with the sample identified using Medline. Following screening of titles and abstracts, bibliometric data of the identified articles were exported into a spreadsheet, where further data related to continental origin, type of article, type of journal (endodontic or non-endodontic) and grant-funding were collated, with additional data concerning presence of journal impact factor, citations, news mentions and Altmetric-tracked-mentions and scores compiled using Clarivate, Scopus, ProQuest and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and un/adjusted negative binomial regression models (p < .05)., Results: The search retrieved 30 443 articles; 951 were included for analysis. Most articles originated from Asia (43.2%) with over 51.5% of articles published in endodontic journals and 80% published in a journal with an impact factor. Over three-quarters of articles were primary research, 141 were grant-funded, 165 had a news mention, 338 achieved an Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and 808 were cited. The five-highest ranked articles were mentioned in general news bulletins, five of the top-10 articles were primary research and six of the top-10 were published in endodontic journals. The highest AAS and citation count were 100 and 87, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that the type of article, publication in a journal with an impact factor, absence of grant-funding and coverage within general news bulletins predicted the AAS 's (p < .001). Article type, publication in an impact-factor journal and presence of an AAS were predictive of citations (p < .001)., Conclusions: Article type and publication in a journal with an impact factor were significant predictors of both societal and professional impact of research articles within Endodontology in the short-term. Non grant-funded research and coverage in general news bulletins achieved greater societal impact, whereas an article achieving an AAS was also strongly related to professional impact., (© 2022 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To identify the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series published in Endodontic journals and to analyse their bibliometric characteristics., Methodology: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases were used to identify the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series in Endodontic journals. Complete bibliographic records of the selected case reports and case series were exported in plain text or BibTeX format and imported into the R environment for statistical computing and graphics. The following parameters were then analysed: names and affiliations of the authors, title, year of publication, journal of publication, first author, corresponding author, literature cited within reports, language, citation counts, impact factor of the journal, keywords, Keywords Plus and research topic., Results: In total, 88 case reports and 12 case series published in English between 1977 and 2016 were identified as the most-cited reports in the field of Endodontics. The terms "case report(s)" or "case series" were not included in the title of 57 articles. The number of authors per report ranged from one to seven, with the average number of co-authors per report being 3.14. The most-cited author was M Trope (University of Pennsylvania, USA). The University of Washington and Private Practice, Cetraro, Italy, were the most productive institutions. The country whose case reports received the largest total number of citations was the United States. The largest number of the most-cited reports appeared in 2002, 2004 and 2007 (n = 7, respectively). According to the WoS database, the total number of citations ranged from 42 to 453, with the average number of citations per report being 79.97. The majority of the top 100 most-cited articles were published in the Journal of Endodontics and the International Endodontic Journal. The most frequently used author keywords were revascularization and mineral trioxide aggregate. The majority of the case reports and case series dealt with topics related to pulp regeneration., Conclusion: This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive overview on the progress, trends and current directions in clinical practice within the field of Endodontics., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Endodontic paper points were tested for antibacterial activity after the accidental finding that bacterial cultures were inhibited by one variety. Of five types tested, two, from the same supplier, were found to exhibit diffusible antibacterial activity against salivary and subgingival plaque micro-organisms. The identity of the agent responsible for this activity has not been determined, but preliminary tests indicate that it is an aldehyde. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biocompatibility of absorbent paper points was evaluated by a haemolysis test and a tissue culture agarose overlay test. One type of paper points produced marked haemolytic activity and a cytotoxic response in the overlay test. The other types tested showed minimal haemolytic activity and no cytotoxicity. Chemical analysis of the cytotoxic paper points revealed that they contained formaldehyde. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For endodontic treatment is performed correctly every substance, instrumental and medication inserted into the root canals should be free from microorganisms. The moisture in the root canal system can interfere with the last step of the dental treatment. To perform the step of root canal filling is necessary drying with the use of these absorbent paper cones. In order to verify whether absorbent paper cones sold in the market were free of contamination or not, a study was conducted with two brands: Endopoints® cell pack, Dentsply®, Endopoints® conventional and conventional totaling 180 samples, which were taken to the laboratory of Microbiology at the Universidade Severino Sombra and performed the analysis. With the result of the research it was found to be indispensable better handling of absorbent paper cones and packaging cell type pack may be the best choice in controlling contamination and successful endodontic treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Dental root canal treatment is required when dental caries progress to infection of the dental pulp. A major goal of this treatment is to provide complete decontamination of the dental root canal system. However, the morphology of dental root canal systems is complex, and many human dental roots have inaccessible areas. In addition, dental reinfection is fairly common. In conventional treatment, a cotton pellet and paper point made from plant cellulose is used to dry and sterilize the dental root canal. Such sterilization requires a treatment material with high absorbency to remove any residue, the ability to improve the efficacy of intracanal medication and high biocompatibility. Bacterial cellulose (BC) is produced by certain strains of bacteria. In this study, we developed BC in a pointed form and evaluated its applicability as a novel material for dental canal treatment with regard to solution absorption, expansion, tensile strength, drug release and biocompatibility. We found that BC has excellent material and biological characteristics compared with conventional materials, such as paper points (plant cellulose). BC showed noticeably higher absorption and expansion than paper points, and maintained a high tensile strength even when wet. The cumulative release of a model drug was significantly greater from BC than from paper points, and BC showed greater compatibility than paper points. Taken together, BC has great potential for use in dental root canal treatment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Copyright of Revista Odonto Ciencia is the property of EDIPUCRS - Editora Universitaria da PUCRS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purposes: This study aimed to assess the current status of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) education in Brazilian undergraduate Endodontic programs., Methods: One hundred program directors were emailed. The questionnaire asked whether the CBCT topic was included in the program, the availability of a CBCT machine, and, the total length of the dental program. For the group that does not teach, seven questions discussed the reasons for not teaching and whether another subject included this topic. For the programs that included CBCT, seven questions discussed the number of hours included, and the impression of the program directors with the quality of the teaching. The chi-square test was used for the correlation between the availability of the CBCT machine and the length of the dental program with the inclusion of the topic., Results: Thirty-five program directors replied to the questionnaire. Twenty-six (74.3%) reported that the topic of CBCT is not included in their programs. There was no impact of the availability of a CBCT machine on the inclusion of the topic (p > 0.05). The increased length of the dental program decreased the inclusion of the topic (p < 0.05). Fifty percent of the directors replied that lack of time is the reason for not including the topic. Among the programs that include CBCT, the majority (55.6%) deliver 3-5 h of lectures. The practical activities range from 1 to 5 h or more. The majority (77.8%) of the directors are satisfied with the content delivered and 44.4% understand that the students are competent in the interpretation of CBCT images., Conclusions: The majority of the Endodontic undergraduate programs in Brazil do not include CBCT in the program. The availability of a CBCT machine does not impact the inclusion of the topic, the increased duration of the dental program decreases the inclusion of the CBCT topic., (© 2022 American Dental Education Association.)

There is increased interest in outcome measures that complement the classic goal of endodontics, being the prevention and healing of apical periodontitis. Possible outcome measures can be subdivided into patient-centred outcomes (PCOs), encompassing data collected by nonpatients aiming to assess the effectiveness of an intervention and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are reported directly by the patient. PROs can be subsequently classed into PRO measures that ascertain patients' view of their symptoms, their functional status, and their health-related quality of life, and patient-reported experience measures that focus on aspects including the humanity of care, patient satisfaction, patient preference and adherence, personal costs, expectation fulfilment, and decision regrets. The present review aims to define various patient-related outcomes and discuss the literature available regarding PCOs and PROs in endodontics. This includes those proposed to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3-level clinical practice guidelines that have been included by all working groups, except for the radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Based on limited evidence in the field, it can be summarized that after recall periods of various lengths, endodontic treatment is associated with a high likelihood of tooth survival and limited need for further intervention, including extraction and further restorative procedures. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is likely to improve following the completion of treatment. Nonetheless, the literature assessing the association between OHRQoL and endodontics is hampered by the use of instruments that have not been previously validated. Amongst the remaining outcome measures discussed in the present review, it is worth highlighting that there is only one study assessing exacerbations in teeth with the presence of endodontic pathosis, which suggests a very low incidence of this adverse effect following endodontic treatment. Patients' expectation fulfilment, adherence, and satisfaction are closely inter-related and depend also on various nonclinical factors. Further studies assessing PCOs and PROs, in association with healing and prevention of apical periodontitis, are required to better understand endodontic treatment from the perspective of patients., (© 2022 The Authors. International Endodontic Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Endodontic Society.)

This paper undertakes a broad and comprehensive synthesis of relevant clinical, biological, biomechanical, technical and healthcare services data to understand the factors affecting outcomes of periapical healing after root canal (re)treatment. The medical and dental evidence-based era (1980-present) is contextualized with the earlier evidence drive in endodontics (1911-1940) triggered by the focal infection era. The current evidence-based approach has a sharper focus on evidence quality and derivation of practice guidelines. Contrary views question whether guideline-driven, or expertise-development-driven endeavours would best serve outcome improvement in society. The endodontic discipline functions in a broad healthcare framework and sustains industrial, economic and trend pressures that may be deemed to influence outcomes. The nature of root canal treatment and the challenges in determining the factors that affect its outcomes is discussed. The factors potentially affecting periapical healing after root canal treatment are classified into pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative groups. These categories subsume multiple elements with interactive influences, creating a complex picture, further confounded by some apparently surprising, counter-intuitive and contradictory findings. The technical versus biological conundrum in root canal treatment continues to cause cognitive dissonance. However, due reflection and cross-discipline-synthesis resolve the apparent data conflicts into a very simple, consistent and plausible picture of how root canal treatment works and the key factors that affect periapical healing. Root canal retreatment is considered mainly in the context of its differences from primary treatment as the majority of factors influencing outcomes are common to both. The exceptional difference is that retreatments have a proportionately reduced probability of healing by virtue of compromised apical root canal ramification access or modified host/infection interactions. Root canal (re)treatment outcomes are dominantly influenced by the nature of prior dynamic host/infection interaction (pre-operative patient factors) and how the direction of this dynamic is influenced by two factors: (1) the active efficacy of the operators' root canal treatment protocol to sustain a microbial ecological shift (intra-operative treatment factors) and dampen periapical inflammation; and (2) the passive ability of the functional tooth (and its restoration margin) to maintain its integrity to resist infection reversal (postoperative restorative factors)., (© 2023 The Authors. International Endodontic Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Endodontic Society.)

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., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The article focuses on a critical analysis of systematic review methodologies concerning vertical root fractures (VRFs), highlighting concerns about potential biases when including studies on broader categories of dental cracks in VRF-specific reviews. Topics include the definition and characteristics of VRFs, methodological variations in VRF detection studies, and the implications of these variations on the reliability of systematic reviews in dental research.

Objective To evaluate endodontic paper point tear test ( PPTT) in rabbits and compare changes in corneal touch threshold ( CTT) induced by Schirmer tear test ( STT) and PPTT. Normal corneal sensitivity recovery time after both tear tests was also measured. Also, mean PPTT and STT values were obtained. Methods Tear production of 20 eyes, from 10 rabbits, was evaluated using STT and the PPTT. Central corneal touch threshold was measured by a Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer before any tear test was performed (zero time), immediately after the test (1 min), and consecutively at 6, 11, 16, and 26 min. Tests were conducted on three consecutive days: Day 1 - control condition, no tear tests performed only the CTT; Day 2 - CTT before and after PPTT; and Day 3 - CTT before and after STT. CTT values were compared using repeated measures ANOVA. Results Corneal touch threshold was significantly increased for at least 16 min after STT, indicating STT causes corneal discomfort. No difference was found between CTT following PPTT and controls, indicating PPTT caused minimal corneal discomfort. The mean (± SD) value for STT was 5.2 ± 1.0 mm/min and for PPTT was 13.8 ± 1.5 mm/min. Discussion The aqueous fraction of rabbit's tears can be successfully measured by PPTT. This report established reference values for PPTT in rabbits. Additionally, the absence of a significant difference in CTT after PPTT compared with controls shows that PPTT is well tolerated by rabbits. Considering the improved comfort (compared with STT), accuracy, and low cost, PPTT is a bona fide method of measuring aqueous tear production in rabbits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A case is reported of a 15 mm paper point found in the periapical area of a maxillary right central incisor during endodontic surgery for an unresolved periapical radiolucency. The paper point had been present for between five arid nine years. Histopathological examination showed the presence of chronically-inflamed fibrous connective tissue with a number of foreign body giant cells and focal collections of chronic inflammatory cells. SEM comparison of the specimen with a similarly treated fresh paper point showed no indication of degradation of the paper point by host defense cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To perform a bibliometric analysis on silicate-based biomaterials in endodontics; to elucidate the evolution and distribution of scientific production regarding research on these biomaterials, the authors and institutions involved, and the most used descriptors/keywords in this field., Materials and Methods: A general advanced broad search was performed in Web of Science Core Collection, using the terms "Silicate" and "Endod*." By means of the "Analyze Results" and "Citation Analysis" tools from Web of Science, bibliometric data were extracted. Bibliometric networks on co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence were illustrated using VOSviewer software tool., Results: Research in the field of silicate-based endodontic materials in endodontics has followed an exponential crescent tendency over the period between 1995 and 2020. Two major co-authorship networks lead the research production in the field, headed by Gandolfi MG and Prati C, and Rodríguez-Lozano FJ and Forner L; respectively. "Mineral trioxide aggregate," "MTA", "Biocompatibility," "Biodentine," and "In vitro" were the terms with the highest occurrence. The modal study type in this research area are laboratory studies, representing 77.7% of the total number of records. The relationship between keywords illustrates the recent tendency to assess biological properties of MTA and Biodentine, which could be extrapolated to other silicate-based materials., Conclusions: The results from the present study highlight the exponential increase and distribution of scientific production on silicate-based materials in endodontics, along with the modal keywords used as descriptors and the major authorship networks involved. The predominance of laboratory studies in this research field reinforces the need for clinical studies, to extrapolate the reported performance and characteristics of silicate-based materials into the clinical setting., Clinical Relevance: The present study may aid the clinician's continuing education and evidence-based practice by providing knowledge and facilitating the literature search on the field of silicate-based biomaterials in endodontics., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The author conducted a study to determine the frequency and types of adverse events associated with endodontic ultrasonic devices as reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database., Methods: Endodontic ultrasonic device-related adverse events reported to the MAUDE database from January 1, 2016, to October 31, 2020, were accessed and reviewed., Results: A total of 1258 adverse event reports were submitted to the FDA MAUDE database, as classified under FDA product code ELC (ultrasonic scaler) during the study period. Among these reports, 403 were specific to the dedicated use of the 2 main types of ultrasonic devices used in endodontic treatment: ultrasonic tip devices and irrigation-related devices. Device malfunction-associated events, consisting primarily of device breakage, comprised 393 of the 1258 adverse event reports, whereas the remaining 10 reports were identified as being patient injury-related reports., Conclusions: The frequency, root causes, and economic costs of ultrasonic tip device breakage remain largely unstudied. Ultrasonic endodontic device-related adverse events and patient injuries occurring within clinical practice may be underreported at the present time. Consequently, the risks and ultimate impacts to patients from ultrasonic endodontic device breakage, malfunction and unknown cause-related adverse events, and patient injuries during their clinical usage remain largely unknown at the present time. Eight of the 10 patient injury-related reports made to the FDA MAUDE database during the period under study, containing descriptions of varying degrees of injury severity, were associated with an irrigation-related device., Competing Interests: The author discloses no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis., Methodology: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item-'Yes'-when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'-when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'-when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers., Results: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'., Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high-quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals., (© 2022 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: This bibliometric analysis aimed to evaluate the leading nations, authors, journals, institutes, highly cited publications, and most commonly used keywords concerning scientific publications based on root and root canal morphology using the CBCT. Material and Methods: For this bibliometric analysis, an extensive search was carried out on September 25, 2023 using the Scopus database. Pertinent articles in the field were scrutinized after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were evaluated using Vosviewer and Microsoft Excel. Results: A literature search revealed the initiation of scientific publication in 2008. Significant contributions made by Saudi Arabia, India, and China concerning the number of publications were seen. Similarly, Jazan University from SA was recognized as the leading institute. The Journal of Endodontics was the leading journal, while authors JNR Martins and G Gambarini produced the highest number of papers. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis demonstrated that scientific publications have increased tremendously since 2008. Significant contributions have been made by developing and developed nations. The Journal of Endodontics and Jazan University have been identified as the leading journal and institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) has served as a platform for research and clinical practice in Endodontics since 1967. This study provides a bibliographic analysis and overview of the publications that have appeared in the IEJ from 1967 to 2020., Methodology: A literature search was performed in Elsevier's Scopus database to locate all the publications of the International Endodontic Journal. Various bibliometric software packages including the open-source visualization software Gephi and Biblioshiny (version 2.0) were employed for data visualization and analysis., Results: A total of 3739 records with citation and bibliographic details were selected and retrieved to allow a bibliometric analysis to be performed. The bibliometric analysis indicates that the IEJ has grown both in terms of productivity and influence. Over time, the journal has been associated with an increase in the number of manuscripts published and the citations they have attracted, but with minor downward fluctuations in citations in the last few years. Bibliographic coupling of the IEJ articles revealed that the major research themes published in the journal include 'endodontics', 'root canal treatment', 'calcium hydroxide', 'apical periodontitis', 'mineral trioxide aggregate', 'microbiology', 'cyclic fatigue', 'cone-beam computed tomography' and 'micro-computed tomography'. Authors affiliated to institutions in the UK were the major contributors to the journal and were linked with other countries such as Brazil, USA and Malaysia. The largest number of publications were from the University of São Paulo, Brazil., Conclusion: The IEJ is one of the leading journals in Endodontology and has been providing a platform for innovative research and clinical reports for more than 50 years. Publications have been associated with a wide range of authors, institutions and countries around the world., (© 2021 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Abstract: Objective: This study analyzed two methods of measuring the absorbing capacity of paper points (PP), testing the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between the results from the percentage of increase mass (PIM) and the linear dye penetration (LDP) methods. Methods: The initial dry weight (IDW) of each PP was recorded using a digital balance before 1-mm introduction into one of the dye solutions, 1% methylene blue (MB) or 1% rodamine B (RB), for 10s. The PP''s were removed from the solution and weighed (final weight – FW). PIM was calculated from the difference between FW and IDW (n =50). The LDP was measured using a stereomicroscope and a ruler (n =50). Data was statistically analyzed using the Pearson correlation and Student''s t tests. Results: Moderate positive correlations between LDP and PIM methods were found using methylene blue (r =0.6356) and rodamine B (r =0.7743), partially confirming the study hypothesis, and suggesting that results from these two methods should be confronted carefully. Significance: The results of this study suggest that the most reliable method of measuring the absorbing capacity of paper points is the PIM and investigators should be aware of differences between the two research protocols when comparing results from these two methods (PIM and LDP). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The aqueous fraction of the tear film and the horizontal palpebral fissure length ( HPFL) were measured in exotic and laboratory animals, specifically saffron finches ( Sicalis flaveola), chestnut-bellied seed-finches ( Sporophila angolensis), red-eared sliders ( Trachemys scripta elegans), rats ( Rattus norvegicus) and mice ( Mus musculus). These species possess small eyes making it difficult to perform the typical Schirmer tear test. Measurement of the aqueous fraction of the tear was performed using the standardized endodontic absorbent paper point tear test ( PPTT), accomplished with manual restraint by a single operator. The following results were obtained: saffron finches ( n = 42)- HPFL (4.46 ± 0.09 mm) and PPTT (5.10 ± 0.26 mm); chestnut-bellied seed-finches (n = 38)- HPFL (4.77 ± 0.05 mm) and PPTT (4.11 ± 0.34 mm); red-eared sliders ( n = 56)- HPFL (8.59 ± 0.08 mm) and PPTT (8.79 ± 0.38 mm); rats (n = 60)- HPFL (6.45 ± 0.09 mm) and PTT (6.18 ± 2.06 mm); and mice (n = 22)- HPFL (3.59 ± 0.27 mm) and PPTT (4.39 ± 1.45 mm). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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/)., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of clinical trials published in Endodontics against the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and to analyse the association between the quality of reported trials and a variety of parameters., Methodology: Fifty randomized clinical trials relating to Endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database from 2015 to 2019 and evaluated by two independent reviewers. For each trial, a score of '1' was awarded when it fully reported each item in the PRIRATE guidelines whereas a score of '0' was awarded when an item was not reported; when the item was reported inadequately a score of '0.5' was awarded. For the items that were not relevant to the trial, 'Not Applicable (NA)' was given. Based on the interquartile range of the overall scores received, trials were categorized into 'Low' (0-58.4%), 'Moderate' (58.5-72.8%) and 'High' (72.9-100%) quality. The associations between characteristics and quality of clinical trials were investigated. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and percentage analyses were used to describe the data. To determine the significance of categorical data, the chi-square test was used. The probability value 0.05 was considered as the level of significance., Results: Based on the overall scores, 13 (26%), 25(50%) and 12 (24%) of the reports of clinical trials were categorized as 'High', 'Moderate' and 'Low' quality, respectively. Three items (1b, 6d, 11e) were adequately reported in all manuscripts whilst two items (5k, 5m) were scored 'NA' in all the reports. The reports published from Europe had a significantly greater percentage of 'High'-quality scores, compared to Asia, Middle East, North America and South America (P = 0.0002). The 'High'-quality reports were published significantly more often in impact factor journals (P = 0.045). Reports of clinical trials published in journals that adhered to the CONSORT guidelines had significantly more 'High' scores compared to those that did not (P = 0.008). Clinical trials with protocols registered a priori had a significantly greater percentage of 'High' scores compared to the trials that were not registered in advance (P = 0.003). No significant difference occurred between the quality of clinical trials and the number of authors, journal (Endodontic specialty vs. Non-Endodontic specialty) or year of publication., Conclusions: Reports of randomized clinical trials published in the speciality of Endodontics had a substantial number of deficiencies. To create high-quality reports of clinical trials, authors should comply with the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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/)., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The formaldehyde content in four brands of endodontic paper points was determined with an improved 2,4Ädinitrophenvihydrazine (DNPH) method. One brand, earlier shown to exhibit cvtotoxic as well as haemolytic activity, contained significantly more formaldehyde than the others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the efficiency of AI methods in finding radiographic features in Endodontic treatment considerations. This review was based on the PRISMA guidelines and QUADAS 2 tool. A systematic search was performed of the literature on cases with endodontic treatments, comparing AI algorithms (test) versus conventional image assessments (control) for finding radiographic features. The search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library. Inclusion criteria were studies on the use of AI and machine learning in endodontic treatments using dental X-rays. The initial search retrieved 1131 papers, from which 24 were included. High heterogeneity of the materials left out a meta-analysis. The reported subcategories were periapical lesion, vertical root fractures, predicting root/canal morphology, locating minor apical foramen, tooth segmentation and endodontic retreatment prediction. Radiographic features assessed were mostly periapical lesions. The studies mostly considered the decision of 1–3 experts as the reference for training their models. Almost half of the included materials campared their trained neural network model with other methods. More than 58% of studies had some level of bias. AI-based models have shown effectiveness in finding radiographic features in different endodontic treatments. While the reported accuracy measurements seem promising, the papers mostly were biased methodologically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact., Materials and Methods: Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects., Results: A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies., Conclusions: During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)