Search

Background: The placement of immediate dental implants intrinsically displays crestal gaps, which may compromise implant osseointegration. Several grafting materials have been used to overcome this issue. Of the available materials, the use of bone cement is relatively new in oral implantology. This study aimed to examine the available literature on the utilization of bone cements in immediate placement of dental implants and assess its potential in oral implantology., Objectives: To synthesize evidence for appraising the impact of bone cements on implant stability and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in humans and animals after 3 months of healing from tooth extraction., Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, and ScienceDirect for relevant studies published from inception to September 2021 using relevant search terms. Of the 1624 studies, 4 were selected for this systematic review., Results: Three of the four studies concluded that bone cements enhanced implant stability and/or BIC with better quality and/or quantity of bone surrounding the immediate dental implant. The conclusion drawn by one article remained indecisive. Meta-analysis could not be performed owing to the presence of substantial heterogeneity., Conclusion: Bone cement is a promising treatment alternative as it augments implant stability and/or BIC in immediate dental implants. Nonetheless, further prospective human clinical trials are required to establish its clinical effectiveness and arrive at a definitive conclusion to recommend its clinical use., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 THE AUTHORS.)

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, I 2  = 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)., (© 2022 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of pulpotomies in primary molars using bioactive endodontic materials and ferric sulfate., Design: The search was conducted in PubMed, Ebscohost, ProQuest, and Scopus databases till June 2021. Children undergoing pulpotomy therapy in primary molars treated with ferric sulfate (FS) and bioactive endodontic materials were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success. Meta-analysis was performed on a random-effects model to assess the success at 6,12,18, and 24 months. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and FS at 24 months for both clinical [RR0.98 (95%CI 0.15,6.34), I 2  = 0%] and radiographic [RR0.74 (95%CI: 0.23,2.43), I 2  = 0%] success. At 6 months [RR1.36 (95%CI: 0.10,19.34), I 2  = 33%], no difference was observed in the clinical [RR1.00 (95%CI: 0.95,1.05), I 2  = 0%] and radiographic success [RR0.99 (95%CI: 0.88,1.11), I 2  = 51%] between Biodentine (BD), FS and radiographic success of calcium enriched cement and FS [RR0.25 (95%CI: 0.03, 2.22), I 2  = 0%]., Conclusion: Amongst bioactive materials, MTA and FS demonstrated equal success rates in both clinical and radiographic outcomes with follow-up periods of up to 24 months. Future, high-quality trials are required to verify the result of the current review., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of periodontal interventions on the diversity and composition of periodontal microbiota assessed by high throughput sequencing (HTS) metagenomics analysis. An electronic search was conducted from database inception to November 2021. All clinical trials that evaluated the effect of periodontal interventions on the gingival microbiota through HTS were selected. The measures of alpha diversity, richness, Shannon diversity index, and the Chao1 index, were used as the primary outcome, whereas relative abundances of bacterial genera were considered as the secondary outcome. Overall, 24 studies were eligible for the systematic review, of which 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Periodontal intervention for the test group decreased Shannon diversity, richness, and Chao1 index (alpha diversity), as observed from baseline to post-treatment. The most common genera that increased after periodontal therapy were Rothia , Actinomyces , Streptococcus , Veillonella , and Hemophilus , whilst Porphyromonas , Tannerella , Fusobacterium , and Treponema decreased after periodontal therapy. Periodontal interventions may decrease the bacterial diversity and richness and alter the composition of oral microbiota in the short term. Periodontal microbiota signatures could potentially be used for the assessment of periodontal disease development, progression, and success of the intervention.

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.)

High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users., (© 2022 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: This is a systematic review to identify the incidence of pulp necrosis and/or periapical changes among vital teeth which are used as an abutment for crown and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)., Materials and Methods: Two reviewers independently searched two electronic databases, PubMed and Scopus. The search was complemented from references of included studies and published reviews. Studies published in the English language through January 2021 that had assessed and documented the clinical and radiographic failure of crown or FPD in vital permanent teeth due to pulpal or periapical pathology with a follow-up of at least 12 months were selected. Data screening, data collection and extraction of data was performed. Quality of studies involved was analyzed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Meta-analysis was done using random effects model. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots., Results: Electronic searches provided 10,075 records among which 20 studies were selected for systematic review and 7 studies were selected for meta-analysis. With respect to quality assessment, all the studies involved were considered as high quality as the score in scale ranged between 6 and 9 as per the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. The meta-analyses showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of the loss of pulp vitality or pulp necrosis through clinical and radiographic examination with the follow up period of 5 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00, I 2 = 77.84%; 10 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.88-0.95, I 2 = 93.59%; 15 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.92-0.96, I 2 = 94.83%; and 20 years: p < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.94-0.96, I 2 = 95.01%., Conclusions: The meta-analysis revealed clinical and radiographic success rate ranging between 92% to 98% at different follow up periods ranging between 5 years and 20 years. Future high-quality randomized clinical controlled trials with a larger population are required to confirm the evidence as only observational studies were considered in this paper., (© 2021 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)

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.)

Background: The effects of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on cell proliferation and osteogenic potential (OP) of MSCs have been frequently studied., Objective: to compare the effects of LPS on periodontal-ligament-derived mesenchymal stem cells (PDLSCs) in monolayer and 3D culture., Methods: The PDLSCs were colorimetrically assessed for proliferation and osteogenic potential (OP) after LPS treatment. The 3D cells were manually prepared by scratching and allowing them to clump up. The clumps (C-MSCs) were treated with LPS and assessed for Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and OP. Raman spectroscopy was used to analyze calcium salts, DNA, and proline/hydroxyproline. Multiplexed ELISA was performed to assess LPS induced local inflammation., Results: The proliferation of PDLSCs decreased with LPS. On Day 28, LPS-treated cells showed a reduction in their OP. C-MSCs with LPS did not show a decrease in ATP production. Principal bands identified in Raman analysis were the P-O bond at 960 cm -1 of the mineral component, 785 cm -1 , and 855 cm -1 showing qualitative changes in OP, proliferation, and proline/hydroxyproline content, respectively. ELISA confirmed increased levels of IL-6 and IL-8 but with the absence of TNF-α and IL-1β secretion., Conclusions: These observations demonstrate that C-MSCs are more resistant to the effects of LPS than cells in monolayer cell culture. Though LPS stimulation of C-MSCs creates an early pro-inflammatory milieu by secreting IL-6 and IL-8, PDLSCs possess inactivated TNF promoter and an ineffective caspase-1 activating process.

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.)

Background: The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis., Objectives: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis., Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I 2  = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'., Conclusion: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.)

Aim: This study aimed to compare the level of interleukin (IL)-10, IL-17, IL-27, IL-35, and IL-37 in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and human plasma of subjects with periodontal disease., Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study conducted over a 3-month period at a primary dental clinic in Malaysia, 45 participants were recruited via consecutive sampling and assigned into three groups, namely healthy periodontium group ( n = 15), gingivitis group ( n = 15), and periodontitis group ( n = 15). Gingival crevicular fluid and plasma samples were collected from each participant. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test was conducted to measure the concentration of IL-10, IL-17, IL-27, IL-35, and IL-37. Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the interleukin levels between patient groups., Results: In GCF samples, IL-17 level was the highest in the periodontitis group ( p <0.05), while IL-27 was the lowest ( p <0.05). Meanwhile, plasma levels of IL-27 and IL-37 were significantly lower ( p <0.05) in the periodontitis group, but plasma IL-35 levels were observed to rise with increasing disease severity., Conclusion: There are reduced local and systemic levels of IL-27 in periodontitis patients., Clinical Significance: Periodontal diseases exert both local and systemic effects, resulting in the destruction of the tooth-supporting structures and contributing to the systemic inflammatory burden. Some of the cytokines that were investigated in the current study, IL-17, IL-27, IL-35, and IL-37, can be potential biomarkers that warrant further longitudinal clinical studies to determine their usefulness as prognostic/diagnostic markers.

Background: Scaling and root planing (SRP) for the treatment of periodontitis may be less effective in some patients. This study evaluated the effectiveness of local doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP among smokers with periodontitis compared to SRP alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Materials and Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched till November 2018 for English publications. RCTs that compared the effect of local doxycycline adjunct to SRP among smokers with periodontitis were selected. Patient characteristics, disease characteristics, and outcome data on clinical attachment level (CAL) and periodontal probing depth at 1, 3- and 6-month follow-up was extracted. Quality of selected studies was assessed by the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Random effects model and trial sequential analysis were performed. GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. P > 0.05 was considered as statistically significant., Results: Five trials were included in the review. Local use of doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP was effective in gain of 1.1 mm (0.47-1.74, P = 0.091) in CAL at 6 months calculated from two studies. The evidence was of low quality, and at least a total of 866 patients are required for conclusiveness., Conclusion: Local doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP significantly improved clinical attachment in smokers with periodontitis and can be recommended. Studies are required with long-term follow-up and patient-related outcome data., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article., (Copyright: © 2020 Dental Research Journal.)

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effect of occlusal reduction on post-operative pain following root canal treatment and was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement being registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018089941). Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source and the Cochrane Library databases. Seven studies were included, of which three were used to perform meta-analysis for 6 days post-operative and the rest for qualitative synthesis. Three studies were assessed as low risk of bias, three as some concern, and one as high risk of bias. Occlusal reduction diminishes the post-operative pain (SMD -1.10 (95%CI -2.06, -0.15) I 2  = 96.9%) at 6 days for teeth diagnosed as irreversible pulpitis, and, overall, likely reduces post-operative pain for patients presenting with irreversible pulpitis and/or symptomatic apical periodontitis. Future high-quality clinical trials are needed to better understand the role of occlusal reduction., (© 2019 Australian Society of Endodontology Inc.)

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.)

Introduction: Bidi, a leaf rolled cigarette, is the most popular form of smoking in India. Bidi cigarette contains higher tar, ammonia, and nicotine content than a conventional cigarette and is more hazardous., Aim of Study: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of bidi smoking on periodontitis by assessing the interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-8 from a gingival crevicular fluid (GCF)., Materials and Methods: A total of 60 patients were selected, which included 40 patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (20 bidi smokers and 20 non-bidi smokers) and 20 periodontal healthy controls. Diseased and healthy sites were selected from each of the chronic periodontitis subjects. Clinical parameters assessed were plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), recession (RC), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Pooled GCF samples were taken from the same site and analyzed for IL-1β and IL-8 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay., Results: Bidi smokers displayed decreased levels of IL-1β and IL-8 than non-bidi smokers for both healthy and diseased sites and significantly reduced IL-8 levels among bidi smokers when compared to controls. Among bidi smokers, the diseased site had significantly higher levels of IL-8 than the healthy site. Non-smoker subjects with chronic periodontitis especially diseased sites contained significantly higher amounts of IL-1β and IL-8 than smokers and controls. The PI scores were highest among bidi smokers with reduced BOP and GI scores., Conclusions: Bidi smoking influenced the cytokine profile among periodontitis patients exhibiting decreased levels of IL-1β and IL-8., Competing Interests: None

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face-to-Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines., (© 2020 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear., Aim: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment., Data Source: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019., Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants and Interventions: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear., Results: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as 'medium' quality., Limitations: Only two systematic reviews included a meta-analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included., Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) have considerable potential for use as a means of achieving periodontal regeneration due to their noteworthy proliferative properties and secretory functions. In particular, PDLSCs secrete vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) which enhances angiogenesis and osteogenesis. The resulting repair and development of blood vessels and hard tissues which would occur in the presence of these cells could be central to an effective periodontal regeneration procedure.The bacterial biofilm of tooth surface related to the periodontium might provide either an inhibition or a stimulus to different factors involved in a regenerative process. Cell culture experiments have been investigated in vitro by adding lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to the culture medium but the effect of various concentration of LPS in these circumstances has not been investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of LPS concentrations on proliferation of PDLSCs in vitro and on their secretion of VEGF., Materials and Methods: PDLSCs were treated with 0, 5, 10 and 20 µg/mL of Escherichia coli LPS. At 48 and 96 h, total cell numbers of control and LPS treated PDLSCs were counted by haemocytometer under a microscope. The VEGF concentration in the conditioned media of the PDLSCs was measured by ELISA., Results: Rate of cell proliferation of PDLSCs decreased significantly in all LPS treated groups at both 48 h and 96 h except for the group treated with 5 µg/mL of LPS at 48 h. At both 48 and 96 h, VEGF secretion from PDLSCs was reduced significantly at all three LPS concentrations. There was no statistically significant difference in cell proliferation and the amount of VEGF secretion of PDLSCs among the groups treated with different LPS concentrations. No statistically significant change was found in cell proliferation of LPS treated PDLSCs over time, whereas VEGF secretion of PDLSCs was found to have increased significantly with time despite the LPS treatment., Conclusions: LPS reduced cell proliferation and VEGF secretion of PDLSCs, suggesting that periodontal pathogens might reduce the capability of PDLSCs in periodontal regeneration. Yet, LPS treated PDLSCs remained viable and VEGF secretion increased significantly over time. Further research is needed to study the potential use of PDLSCs in periodontal regeneration and the relationship of biofilm LPS accumulations., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2019 The Authors.)

Objective: To determine whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of periodontitis., Basic Research Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Method: PubMed and Scopus were searched for eligible articles published in English from inception till November 2018. The quality of studies was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the risk of periodontitis associated with highest versus lowest/non-alcohol in a random effects meta-analysis model. Heterogeneity and sensitivity were investigated in meta regression analysis. A funnel plot was used to assess publication bias., Results: Twenty-nine observational studies were included. One study with two separate datasets was considered as two separate studies for analysis. Alcohol consumption was significantly associated with the presence of periodontitis (OR = 1.26, 95% CI= 1.11-1.41). Significant heterogeneity (I2=71%) was present in the overall analysis, primarily attributable to sampling cross-sectional studies (I2=76.6%). A funnel plot and Egger tests (p=0.0001) suggested the presence of publication bias., Conclusion: Alcohol consumption was associated with increased occurrence of periodontitis and should be considered as a parameter in periodontal risk assessment. Publication bias should be explored in future studies., (Copyright© 2020 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

Objectives: Identify the determinants of periodontitis in a rural Indian population aged 35-44 years., Basic Research Design: Case-control clinical and questionnaire study in a cluster sample of 50 villages., Methods: A total of 3000 persons were screened for the presence of periodontitis using the CDC case definition in full mouth examination. Equal numbers of cases (604 persons with periodontitis) and controls (604 without periodontitis) were recruited and interviewed with a piloted questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analysis estimated crude and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) respectively with 95% confidence limits., Results: Six factors were determined by multivariate analysis to predict periodontitis: education less than or equal to twelve years of schooling (aOR=2.51, 95% CI=1.18-5.34), alcohol consumption (aOR= 1.7, 95% CI=1.16-2.49), consuming a non-vegetarian diet (aOR=1.38, 95% CI=1.08-1.76), not drinking milk (aOR=1.7, 95% CI= 1.29-2.24), not using a toothbrush for cleaning of teeth (aOR=2.98, 95% CI =1.71-5.21) and not cleaning teeth at least once a day (aOR=2.13, 95% CI=1.58-2.87)., Conclusion: Risk factors for periodontitis in a rural Indian population were identified. Further studies should validate these findings and appropriate recommendations should be developed to decrease the prevalence and burden of periodontitis in this population., (Copyright© 2020 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub-optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis., Aim: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment., Data Source: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019., Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants and Interventions: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear., Results: Five systematic reviews with meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as 'high' quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions., Limitations: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events., Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the success rate of formocresol and ferric sulfate through meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA)., Method and Materials: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD 42018090044). Two independent reviewers used PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases to identify randomized clinical trials published from inception to June 2019. Patients undergoing pulpotomy therapy in vital primary molars with pulp exposure due to caries treated with formocresol and ferric sulfate were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the success at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and TSA was performed for success at 24 months. Quality of evidence was determined by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) analysis., Results: Eight clinical trials were included in meta-analysis. No difference was observed in the clinical and radiographic success rate between formocresol and ferric sulfate at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. TSA identified required information size of 687 teeth for clinical success and 568 teeth for radiographic success. In addition, it demonstrated evidence for radiographic success rate at an anticipated intervention effect of 10% for formocresol over ferric sulfate., Conclusion: Formocresol and ferric sulfate show comparable clinical and radiographic success rates as pulpotomy material in primary molars at 24 months based on the studies with low to moderate quality of evidence.

Aim: To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals., Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and multi-variate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test., Results: A total of 24 studies were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-Abstract score was 7.46 ± 1.19. None of the studies were of high quality (score 10-12), 20 were of moderate (score 7-9), and 4 were of low quality (score 1-6). Journals that adhered to PRISMA guidelines showed significantly higher quality (p < 0.05). No association was found between the quality and the number of authors, country, journals, year of publication, word count and focus of study., Conclusion: Majority of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals were of moderate quality. Adoption and adherence to PRISMA-Abstract checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.

Introduction: This systematic review compared the anesthetic efficacy between Gow-Gates (GG), Vazirani-Akinosi (VA), and mental incisive (MI) nerve blocks (NBs) with inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA)., Methods: Studies were identified from 4 electronic databases up to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the anesthetic success rate of GG, VA, and MI NBs with IANBs in mandibular premolars and molars with irreversible pulpitis were included. The quality of selected RCTs was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and random errors were evaluated by TSA. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Five RCTs were included; 2 of them were classified as low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in the anesthesia success rate compared between GG and IA NBs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82-1.48; I 2 = 0%). Similarly, no difference was evident between MINB and IANB (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; I 2 = 0%). Overall, the cumulative success rates for the 3 anesthetic techniques were low. TSA showed a lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analysis between GG NB and IANB. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach evaluation showed that the evidence was of moderate quality for GG NB and IANB compared with low quality for MI and IA NBs. Because only 1 study was available comparing VA NB and IANB, a meta-analysis was not performed. The adverse effect associated with MI NB was swelling, whereas it was prolonged numbness for IANB., Conclusions: GG NB and IANB showed similar anesthetic efficacy compared with IANB in mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. However, the success rates for each technique indicate the need for supplemental anesthesia. Further well-designed RCTs evaluating different anesthetic techniques with and without supplemental injection are required to provide stronger evidence., (Copyright © 2019 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To compare the effectiveness of systemic doxycycline as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) with SRP alone in improving periodontal clinical attachment level and glycemic control in diabetic patients with periodontitis., Methods: Two independent reviewers (KY and SJ) screened two electronic databases, PubMed and Scopus, for randomized clinical trials on the use of systemic doxycycline as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in improving periodontal status and glycemic control in diabetic patients with periodontitis using predetermined selection criteria within a 3-month period. The reviewers independently did data screening, data selection, data extraction and risk of bias. Quality of studies involved was analysed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Weighted standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects meta-analysis model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plot. Quality of evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: Electronic searches provided 1358 records and six studies were selected. The meta-analyses indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the improvement of periodontal status with the use of systemic doxycycline as an adjunct for scaling and root planing (SRP). SMD of clinical attachment levels (- 0.22 [- 0.52, 0.08]) and HbA1c levels (- 0.13 [- 0.41, 0.15]) were calculated. Overall risk of bias is high in 2 out of 6 studies involved., Conclusion: Systemic doxycycline when used in addition to scaling and root planing yields no significant improvement of clinical attachment levels for periodontal status and reduction of HbA1c levels in treatment of diabetic patients with periodontitis when comparing the test group to the control group.

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In endodontic infections, inflammatory mediators such as cytokines are released, recruited and retained until the infection is eradicated. Root canal therapy is performed to prevent the spread of infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of root canal debridement (cleaning and shaping) on periapical inflammation by measuring the levels of inflammatory cytokines, Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and Interleukin-10 (IL-10). The study includes twenty patients with pulp necrosis and asymptomatic apical periodontitis. Periradicular sample was collected using paper points before and after root canal debridement. Cytokine levels were determined by Sandwich Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Data were analysed using paired t-test (PASW Statistics 18) (P = 0.05). All samples showed the presence of IL-8 and IL-10 prior to root canal debridement. Significantly reduced levels (P < 0.05) of IL-8 and IL-10 were detected after root canal debridement. In conclusion, root canal debridement significantly decreased the levels of the tested pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine in the periradicular interstitial fluid., (© 2018 Australian Society of Endodontology Inc.)

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

Randomized clinical trials are acknowledged as the most appropriate methodology for demonstrating the efficacy or effectiveness of one intervention as opposed to another and thus play a major role in clinical decision-making. However, it is recognized that despite the existence of various guidelines, for example, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, the quality of manuscripts describing randomized trials is often suboptimal. The current project aims to develop and disseminate new guidelines, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE), to improve the planning and reporting quality of randomized trials in the field of Endodontics. The project leads (VN, PD) designed a robust process to develop the PRIRATE guidelines. At first, a steering committee of eight members, including the project leads, was formed. Thereafter, a five-stage consensus process will be followed: initial steps, pre-meeting activities, face-to-face consensus meeting, post-meeting activities and post-publication activities. The steering committee will develop the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines by identifying relevant and important items from various sources including the CONSORT guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. This will be followed by the establishment of a PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members. The individual items of the first draft of the PRIRATE guidelines developed by the steering committee will be evaluated and scored on a 9-point Likert scale by the PDG members. Items with a score of seven and above by more than 70% of PDG members will be included in the second draft of the guidelines, and the Delphi process will be repeated until each item fulfils the set conditions. After obtaining consensus from the PDG, the PRIRATE guidelines will be discussed by 20 selected individuals within a PRIRATE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG) to arrive at a final consensus. The final PRIRATE guidelines will be accompanied with an explanation and elaboration document developed by the steering committee and approved by six members, three from the PDG and three from the PFCMG. The PRIRATE guidelines will be published in journals and actively disseminated to educational institutions, national and international academic societies and presented at scientific meetings. The steering committee will periodically revise and update the PRIRATE guidelines based on feedback from stakeholders., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The management of pain during root canal treatment is important. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify the anaesthetic solution that would provide the best pulpal anaesthesia for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched to identify studies up to October 2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two anaesthetic solutions (lidocaine (lignocaine), articaine, bupivacaine, prilocaine or mepivacaine) used for IANB for treatment of irreversible pulpitis were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Pairwise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis using a random-effects model, and SUCRA ranking were performed. The network meta-analysis estimated the probability of each treatment performing best. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. In total, 11 studies (n = 750) were included in the meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis revealed that only mepivacaine significantly increased the success rate of IANB compared to lidocaine (RR, 1.42 [95% CI 1.04-1.95]). However, no significant differences in the success rate of IANB were observed between mepivacaine and other anaesthetic agents (articaine and bupivacaine). Of all anaesthetic agents, mepivacaine (SUCRA = 0.81) ranked first in increasing the success rate of IANB, followed by prilocaine (SUCRA = 0.62), articaine (SUCRA = 0.54), bupivacaine (SUCRA = 0.41) and lidocaine (SUCRA = 0.13). The overall quality of evidence was very low to moderate. In conclusion, based on the evidence from the randomized clinical trials included in this review, mepivacaine with epinephrine demonstrated the highest probability of providing effective pulpal anaesthesia using IANB for teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared to prilocaine, articaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine. Further, high-quality clinical trials are needed to support the conclusion of this review., (© 2019 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Case reports are used to communicate interesting, new or rare condition/s, innovative treatment approaches or novel techniques. Apart from informing readers, such information has the potential to contribute towards further scientific studies and the development of newer management modalities. In that context, it is important that case reports are presented accurately and deliver all the necessary and pertinent information to the reader. Reporting guidelines are used to inform authors of the quality standards required to ensure their manuscripts are accurate, complete and transparent. The aim of this project is to develop and disseminate new guidelines - Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE). The primary aim is to aid authors when constructing case reports in the field of Endodontics to ensure the highest possible reporting standards are adopted. The project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee comprising six additional members. Subsequently, a five-phase consensus process will be used. The steering committee will develop the PRICE guidelines (PRICE checklist and flow chart) by identifying relevant items (quality standards) derived from the CAse REport guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles, focussing on the content of case reports. Following this, the steering committee will identify a PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members including academicians, practitioners, and members of the public. The individual items (components) of the PRICE checklist will be evaluated by the PDG based on a 9-point Likert scale. Only items scored between 7 and 9 by 70% or more members will be included in the draft checklist. The Delphi process will be continued until a consensus is reached and a final set of items agreed by the PDG members. Following this, a PRICE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) will be formed with 20 members to achieve a final consensus. The final consensus-based checklist and flow chart will be evaluated and approved by selected members of the PDG and PFMG. The approved PRICE guidelines will be published in relevant journals and disseminated via contacts in academic institutions and national endodontic societies, as well as being presented at scientific/clinical meetings., (© 2018 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: This review aimed to find the most effective oral premedication in reducing pain in adults after nonsurgical root canal therapy (NSRCT) using network meta-analysis., Methods: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071899). A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and EBSCOhost databases until June 2017 with no language restriction. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of oral premedications, whether given alone or in combination, compared with other agents, placebo, or no treatment in adult patients before NSRCT for postoperative pain were included. Nonintervention studies, nonendodontic studies, animal studies, and reviews were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pair-wise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and quality of evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was performed., Results: Eleven studies comparing pharmacologic groups of medications were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisolone 30-40 mg) was ranked best for reducing postoperative pain (median difference [MD] = -18.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), -32.90 to -3.37] for the pain score at 6 hours; MD = -22.17 [95% CI, -36.03 to -8.32] for the pain score at 12 hours; and MD = -21.50 [95% CI, -37.95 to -5.06] for the pain score at 24 hours). However, the evidence was very low (6 and 24 hours) to moderate quality (12 hours). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were ranked least among the medications, and the quality of this evidence was very low. Additional analysis based on the chemical name showed that sulindac, ketorolac, and ibuprofen significantly reduced pain at 6 hours, whereas piroxicam and prednisolone significantly reduced the pain at 12 and 24 hours. Etodolac was found to be least effective in reducing pain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low quality., Conclusions: Based on the limited and low-quality evidence, oral premedication with piroxicam or prednisolone could be recommended for controlling postoperative pain after NSRCT. However, more trials are warranted to confirm the results with a higher quality of evidence., (Copyright © 2018 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether machine-assisted agitation resulted in less postoperative pain (PP) compared with syringe irrigation with needle alone in adult patients undergoing root canal treatment., Methods: A literature search was performed in 3 electronic databases for articles published before August 2018. Randomized clinical trials published in English that compared PP between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needles as part of nonsurgical root canal treatment were included. Two authors were independently involved in the article selection process, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. The pooled effect estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needle was calculated by a random effects-modeled meta-analysis. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach., Results: Six studies were included for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using 3 studies and showed that machine-assisted agitation resulted in less PP compared with syringe irrigation with needle at 24 hours (SMD = -0.73; 95% confidence interval, -1.04 to -0.42; I 2 = 30.6%) and 48 hours (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.35; I 2 = 0%). The quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations for the PP outcomes (24 hours and 48 hours) was graded as "moderate" quality., Conclusions: Machine-assisted agitation reduced PP compared with syringe irrigation with needles in nonsurgical root canal treatment. Future clinical trials are needed to support the result of this review., (Copyright © 2019 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Pulpotomy is the favored treatment for pulp exposure in carious primary teeth. This review aimed to compare the success rates of biodentine (BD) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomies in primary molars using meta-analysis (MA) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) and also to assess the quality of the results by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)., Methods: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus databases were searched. Additional searching was performed in clinical trial registry, reference lists of systematic reviews, and textbooks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the English language through October 2017 comparing the success of pulpotomies in vital primary molars with a follow-up of at least 6 months were selected. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. MA by random effects model, TSA, and GRADE were performed., Results: Eight RCTs (n = 474) were included. Two RCTs had low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed between MTA and BD in clinical success at 6 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; I2 = 0%). No difference was observed in radiographic success at follow-up of 6 months (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15; I2 = 0%). TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analytic outcomes on clinical and radiographic success. GRADE assessed the evidence from the MA comparing the effect of MTA and BD in pulpotomy to be of low quality., Conclusion: BD and MTA have similar clinical and radiographic success rates based on limited and low-quality evidence. Future high-quality RCTs between MTA and BD is required to confirm the evidence., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Irrigants are imperative in endodontic therapy for the elimination of pathogens from the infected root canal. The present study compared the antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT) with chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) against Staphylococcus epidermidis ( S. epidermidis ) for root canal disinfection., Materials and Methods: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was obtained using serial dilution method. The agar diffusion method was then used to determine the zones of inhibition for each irrigant. Lastly, forty 6-mm dentin blocks were prepared from human mandibular premolars and inoculated with S. epidermidis . Samples were randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 blocks and irrigated for 3 minutes with saline (control), 2% CHX, 3% NaOCl, or 0.1% OCT. Dentin samples were then collected immediately for microbial analysis, including an analysis of colony-forming units (CFUs)., Results: The MICs of each tested irrigant were 0.05% for CHX, 0.25% for NaOCl, and 0.0125% for OCT. All tested irrigants showed concentration-dependent increase in zones of inhibition, and 3% NaOCl showed the largest zone of inhibition amongst all tested irrigants ( p < 0.05). There were no significant differences among the CFU measurements of 2% CHX, 3% NaOCl, and 0.1% OCT showing complete elimination of S. epidermidis in all samples., Conclusions: This study showed that OCT was comparable to or even more effective than CHX and NaOCl, demonstrating antimicrobial activity at low concentrations against S. epidermidis ., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.