Search

Background: Pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain can result in debilitating pain. Dogma has existed to offer only have two treatment options, namely root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction, although pulpotomy has always remained a potential treatment modality. Objective: This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T). Methods: Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta‐analysis was performed on a fixed‐effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta‐analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63–1.55, I2 = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years. Discussion: Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT. Conclusion: This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well‐designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area. Registration: PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyze available data on gene polymorphisms in odontogenic keratocysts (OKC) and ameloblastomas, including their possible relationship with clinical and histological features of these lesions. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of Web of Science Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE was conducted using relevant key terms and supplemented by a gray literature search. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using criteria from the Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) statement. Results: Ten studies were included in the final review. Survivin ‐31G/C, interleukin IL‐1α ‐889 C/T, p53 codon 72 G/C, tumor necrosis factor TNF‐α (−308G>A) and its receptor TNF‐R1 (36A>G), glioma‐associated oncogene homolog 1 rs2228224 and matrix metalloproteinase 2 rs243865 gene polymorphisms were reported to be associated with OKC. For ameloblastomas, p53 codon 72 G/C, X‐ray repair cross‐complementing protein 1—codons 194 and 399 and matrix metalloproteinase 9 rs3918242 gene polymorphisms were identified as risk factors. It was not possible to establish a relationship between specific polymorphisms and clinical and histological features of investigated lesions. Conclusions: Several gene polymorphisms might be considered as a risk factor for the development of these lesions. Future studies should investigate whether these polymorphisms might be used to identify patients with increased risk of recurrence or aggressive disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]