Search

The aim of this study was to assess whether calcium silicate root fillings prevent bacterial penetration and to determine how bacteria penetrate roots. Extracted single‐rooted, single‐canal human teeth were decoronated, prepared and filled with ProRootMTA or Biodentine (n = 12 each). Positive and negative (n = 2 each) controls were not filled. A two‐chamber model was used with Streptococcus gordonii. The lower compartment was evaluated for turbidity over 150 days. Roots were split and examined for bacteria via SEM. The chi‐squared test was used for comparisons (α = 0.05). Experimental groups had bacteria in their coronal thirds. Tubules contained bacteria in 90.9% and 91.7% of areas examined in the Biodentine and ProRootMTA groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.914). Experimental and negative roots had no turbidity with no significant difference between Biodentine and ProRootMTA (p = 1.000). Positive controls had turbidity. Bacteria penetrate roots via dentine tubules of root‐filled teeth. Biodentine was comparable to ProRoot MTA. [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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently no standard, universally accepted, and clinically useful classification of pulp, root canal and peri-radicular conditions is used within the dental profession. Most published classifications are either too simple and miss many of the conditions reported to occur within the pulp, root canal and peri-radicular tissues, or they are too complex for use in clinical settings. Furthermore, many classifications have used inappropriate terminology that has either not been defined or has been poorly defined. The lack of standardisation leads to confusion amongst practitioners and potential uncertainty regarding treatment. It also limits the ability to communicate effectively, to teach appropriately, and to compare data and research findings throughout the world. When developing a classification of tissue conditions or diseases, it is essential that the classification is developed appropriately and meets the recommended criteria for effective clinical, educational and research use. It is also extremely important that correct and well-defined terminology is used since "words do matter". Popular terminology based on symptoms should be avoided as these have been proven to lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. This review discusses how classifications should be developed for pulp, root canal and peri-radicular conditions. It also discusses the deficiencies of some popular classifications and outlines the classifications that truly address the recommended criteria and reflect the physiological and pathological changes in the pulp, root canal and peri-radicular tissues. Hence, it is recommended that these latter classifications be adopted as the internationally-accepted classifications for future clinical use, as well as for educational, research and communication purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Dentists can prescribe medications for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes. In Australia, dental graduates can autonomously practise within the scope of their qualifications without needing to undertake an internship post‐graduation. Although previous research has identified knowledge gaps amongst dental students in Australia on pharmacology and pharmacotherapeutic knowledge, there has been no published research that qualitatively highlights dental students' knowledge of medication prescribing in Australia. This study aimed to undertake a qualitative analysis of Western Australian dental students' attitudes towards and knowledge of medication prescribing. Methods: This qualitative case study design employed semi‐structured interviews as means of collecting data. It utilised a purposive sampling in penultimate and final year dental students at the University of Western Australia. Results: Twenty dental students participated in the study. Five key themes were identified in the data: current and previous education, application when delivering pharmacology and pharmacotherapeutics, teaching to ensure patient‐centred care, supervision and referral to relevant resources. Participants agreed that having previous knowledge in the area provides students with confidence regarding medication prescribing. Furthermore, students in this study valued having guidance when prescribing medications. Conclusions: This study highlights the complexity of medication prescribing for dental students. It also highlights their experience with the current pharmacology and pharmacotherapeutics curriculum. All students interviewed valued application‐based teaching, making it specific to dentistry. If curriculum were to be redeveloped, considering their perceptions may be a valuable tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]