Dental and endodontic-related stress amongst undergraduate students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

AIM: To determine and explain the principal sources of stress among preclinical and clinical dental undergraduate students with a particular focus on the stressors linked to endodontics. METHODOLOGY: A mixed-methods study, with an explanatory sequential design, was employed. Volunteer students of second, third and fourth years were asked to complete both the Dental Environment Stress (DES) questionnaire and a bespoke questionnaire for endodontic-related stress assessment, which had 21 questions in common with the DES. The results were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis and Marginal Homogeneity tests. In the second part of the study, a qualitative phase was conducted through focus group interviews of students from each academic year included in the study. Interviews were analysed by inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The DES questionnaire determined that for all years the most stressful domains were 'performance pressure', 'workload' and 'clinical training'. According to the endodontic stress questionnaire, the most stressful domains were 'self-efficacy beliefs', 'endodontic clinical training' and 'faculty and administration' in early years, while they were 'endodontic patient treatment', 'performance pressure in endodontics' and 'clinical training' in later years. Comparing questions common to both questionnaires revealed that the stress score was lower for the endodontic stress questionnaire than in the DES questionnaire for 17 questions, being significantly lower for 13 questions (p < 0.05) and significantly higher for no question. The qualitative study showed that students' dental and endodontic-related stress was linked to different domains: patient, clinical procedure, organization, staff, academic education, evaluation and COVID-19-related issues. Qualitative aspects highlighted the important role that patients and COVID-19 have played in student stress. However, they suggested a possible explanation for the lower endodontic stress observed in this dental university hospital, which was based on: the nature of the teaching in endodontics, the consensus between endodontic supervisors, the use of a logical, progressive procedure and the considerable experience that students gain over the years. CONCLUSION: Students considered endodontics stressful; however, education can play a central role in reducing stress, particularly during the early parts of the undergraduate course.

Effectiveness of full Pulpotomy compared with Root canal treatment in managing teeth with signs and symptOms indicative of irreversible pulpitis: a protocol for prospectiVE meta-analysis of individual participant data of linked randomised clinical trials (PROVE).

BACKGROUND: Full pulpotomy has been proposed as an alternative to root canal treatment in teeth with signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis (IRP), but the evidence is limited, relying on underpowered studies with a high risk of bias. The aim of this study is to conduct a prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of individual participant data of a series of individual randomised trials to provide robust evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment. METHODS: Individual participant data will be obtained from a series of randomised trials designed and conducted by a consortium of multi-national investigators with an interest in vital pulp treatment. These individualised trials will be conducted using a specified protocol, defined outcomes, and outcome measures. Ten parallel-group randomised trials currently being conducted in 10 countries will provide data from more than 500 participants. The primary outcome is a composite measure defined as (1) the absence of pain indicative of IRP, (2) the absence of signs and symptoms indicative of acute or chronic apical periodontitis, and (3) the absence of radiographic evidence of failure including radiolucency or resorption. Individual participant data will be obtained, assessed, and checked for quality by two independent reviewers prior to the PMA. Pooled estimates on treatment effects will be generated using a 2-stage meta-analysis approach. The first stage involves a standard regression analysis in each trial to produce aggregate data on treatment effect estimates followed by an inverse variance weighted meta-analysis to combine these aggregate data and produce summary statistics and forest plots. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the composite outcome will be undertaken as a process evaluation to evaluate treatment fidelity and acceptability by patients and dentists. RESULTS: The research question and trial protocol were developed and approved by investigators in all 10 sites. All sites use shared resources including study protocols, data collection forms, participant information leaflets, and consent forms in order to improve flow, consistency, and reproducibility. Each site obtained its own Institutional Review Board approval, and trials were registered in appropriate open access platforms. Patient recruitment has started in most sites, as of July 2023. DISCUSSION: PMA offers a rigorous, flexible, and efficient methodology to answer this important research question and provide results with improved generalisability and external validity compared with traditional trials and retrospective meta-analyses. The results of this study will have implications for both the delivery of clinical practice and structured clinical guidelines' development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023446809. Registered on 08 February 2023.

MMP-9 Levels and NaOCl Lavage in Randomized Trial on Direct Pulp Capping.

Outcome expectations of direct pulp capping in carious teeth are obscured by a clinically unknown infiltration and breakdown of the dental pulp tissue. Histologic studies showed that this soft tissue breakdown is related to the innate immune system. We hypothesized 1) that a neutrophil biomarker could predict the outcome of direct pulp capping and 2) that using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as a lavage solution to remove necrotized infected pulp tissue could improve it. In this randomized trial in mature posterior teeth causing no or mild discomfort with carious pulpal exposures, pulpal fluid was collected to assess neutrophil gelatinase (matrix metalloproteinase 9 [MMP-9]) per total protein (TP) levels as a predictive local biomarker. Subsequently, the dentin-pulp wound was randomly washed with a 2.5% NaOCl or a physiologic saline solution (1:1 allocation), capped with mineral trioxide aggregate, and the tooth was immediately restored with a resin-based composite restoration. Ninety-six patients were included, and 84 individuals could be followed up to treatment failure or clinically confirmed pulp survival after a minimum of 1 y. The entire data were fitted to a Cox proportional hazards model to assess the influence of the observational variables MMP-9/TP and discomfort with the randomized lavage treatment on pulp survival. The Kaplan-Meier pulp survival rates after 1 y were 55% for saline and 89% for NaOCl lavage. The inflammatory state of the pulp tissue as reflected by MMP-9/TP levels and NaOCl lavage had a highly significant (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively) impact on pulp survival, while mild preoperative discomfort did not. In conclusion, MMP-9/TP showed great promise as a predictive local biomarker, and NaOCl lavage considerably improved the survival time of cariously exposed and directly capped pulps.

A protocol for the Development of Core Outcome Sets for Endodontic Treatment modalities (COSET): an international consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of endodontic treatment is generally assessed using a range of patient and clinician-centred, non-standardised clinical and radiographic outcome measures. This makes it difficult to synthesise evidence for systematic analysis of the literature and the development of clinical guidelines. Core outcome sets (COS) represent a standardised list of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical studies in a particular field. Recently, clinical researchers and guideline developers have focussed on the need for the integration of a patient-reported COS with clinician-centred measures. This study aims to develop a COS that includes both patient-reported outcomes and clinician-centred measures for various endodontic treatment modalities to be used in clinical research and practice. METHODS: To identify reported outcomes (including when and how they are measured), systematic reviews and their included clinical studies, which focus on the outcome of endodontic treatment and were published between 1990 and 2020 will be screened. The COSs will be defined by a consensus process involving key stakeholders using semi-structured interviews and an online Delphi methodology followed by an interactive virtual consensus meeting. A heterogeneous group of key 'stakeholders' including patients, general dental practitioners, endodontists, endodontic teachers, clinical researchers, students and policy-makers will be invited to participate. Patients will establish, via interactive interviews, which outcomes they value and feel should be included in a COS. In the Delphi process, other stakeholders will be asked to prioritise outcomes identified from the literature and patient interviews and will have the opportunity at the end of the first round to add outcomes that are not included, but which they consider relevant. Feedback will be provided in the second round, when participants will be asked to prioritise the list again. If consensus is reached, the remaining outcomes will be discussed at an online meeting and agreement established via defined consensus rules of outcome inclusion. If consensus is not reached after the second round, a third round will be conducted with feedback, followed by the online meeting. Following the identification of a COS, we will proceed to identify how and when these outcomes are measured. DISCUSSION: Using a rigorous methodology, the proposed consensus process aims to develop a COS for endodontic treatment that will be relevant to stakeholders. The results of the study will be shared with participants and COS users. To increase COS uptake, it will also be actively shared with clinical guideline developers, research funders and the editors of general dental and endodontology journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COMET 1879. 21 May 2021.

The association between apical periodontitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The association between adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and maternal apical periodontitis remains unclear as it has not been examined rigorously or reviewed systematically. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically evaluate the available evidence on the association of maternal apical periodontitis with several APOs. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from inception to 25 February 2021, with no language restrictions. Observational studies including longitudinal clinical trials, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies of prospective and retrospective design were included. Articles with duplicate or overlapping results, abstract-only papers, case reports, case series, animal studies and reviews were excluded. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included studies; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the adapted form of the NOS were used to assess the quality for case-control and cross-sectional studies, respectively. RESULTS: Two case-control and one cross-sectional study were included in the current review. The included studies were published between 2015 and 2017, with a total of 1187 participating individuals with an approximate age range of 15 to 40 years. As the included studies reported different outcomes, the heterogeneity of data prevented a meta-analysis being undertaken. The overall quality of the evidence was 'Fair' for two out of three included studies, while one study was categorized as 'Good'. DISCUSSION: Two out of three included primary studies had a substantial number of methodological inconsistencies and flaws, and therefore caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this systematic review because several important covariates were not considered in the original investigations. CONCLUSION: Based on a limited volume and 'Fair' and 'Good' quality of evidence, a positive association between maternal apical periodontitis and APOs was observed. However, more 'Good' quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the results of the current review. FUNDING: None REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42-2191987).

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist.

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

Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Diagnostic accuracy studies play an important role in informing clinical practice and patient management, by evaluating the ability of diagnostic testing and imaging to identify the presence or absence of a disease or condition. These studies compare the relative diagnostic strength of the test or device with a reference standard, therefore, guiding clinical decisions on the reliability of the test, the need for further tests, and whether to monitor or treat a particular condition. Inadequate and incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies can disguise methodological deficiencies and ultimately result in study bias and the inability to translate research findings into daily clinical practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) guidelines are being developed in order to improve the accuracy, transparency, completeness and reproducibility of diagnostic accuracy studies in the speciality of Endodontology. The aim of this paper is to report the process used to develop the PRIDASE guidelines based on a well-established consensus process. The project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee of nine members (PD, VN, PA, AF, DR, SP, CK, MP, HD) to oversee and manage the project. The PRIDASE steering committee will develop the initial draft of the PRIDASE guidelines by adapting and modifying the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines, adding new items related specifically to the nature of Endodontics and incorporate the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The initial guidelines will consist of a series of domains and individual items and will be validated by the members of a PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of a minimum of 30 individuals who will evaluate independently the individual items based on two parameters: 'clarity' using a dichotomous scoring (yes/no) and 'suitability' for inclusion using a 9-point Likert Scale. The scores awarded by each member and any suggestions for improvement will be shared with the PDG to inform an iterative process that will result in a series of items that are clear and suitable for inclusion in the new PRIDASE guidelines. Once the PDG has completed its work, the steering committee will create a PRIDASE Meeting Group (PMG) of 20 individuals from around the world. Members of the PDG will be eligible to be the part of PMG. The draft guidelines and flowchart approved by the PDG will then be presented for further validation and agreement by the PMG. As a result of these discussions, the PRIDASE guidelines will be finalized and then disseminated to relevant stakeholders through publications and via the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org). Periodic updates to the PRIDASE guidelines will be made based on feedback from stakeholders and end-users.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3 level clinical practice guidelines: a protocol.

The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3Level Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease for the benefit of clinicians and patients. In order to ensure a homogenous review process in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, it is essential that the core outcomes for all endodontic treatments are standardized and recommendations are made regarding minimum follow-up time specific to each outcome measure. In the absence of a recognized core outcome set in Endodontics, the current project aimed to follow an established consensus process to define the most appropriate clinician and patient-reported outcomes. As part of the project, recommendations will also be agreed regarding an acceptable minimum follow-up period for studies by literature review and group discussion. The selected outcome measures and follow-up periods will be used in subsequent systematic analyses of the literature to investigate the effectiveness of endodontic treatment to alleviate pulpitis and apical periodontitis. In this paper, previous reviews, ESE Guidelines and Position Statements were searched in order to compile a list of potentially important outcome measures for the treatment of pulpitis (working group 1), the nonsurgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 4). Initially, the two S3 guideline leads selected two independent senior clinical academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead each of the four working groups forming a 10-member steering group. The working group leads in turn selected 32 academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead the individual systematic reviews contained within the respective working groups. These 42 individuals make up the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Prior to the selected systematic reviewers commencing writing and submitting the review protocol, the complete list of outcome variables identified in this document will be ranked by the 42 members of the GDG in their importance to the individual patient using a 9-point Likert scale. A summary of the survey scores will thereafter be shared with the members of the group and the final list of clinician and patient-reported outcome measures rated as critical for decision making (7-9 on Likert scale by majority of survey participants) to guide systematic reviews will be consented and confirmed during an online meeting of the steering group. In this online meeting, another aspect with regard to meaningfulness of clinical trial results to be addressed in systematic reviews will be consented: length of follow-up. In order to develop high quality guidelines, it is suggested that the follow-up period after treatment should be related to the specific outcome measure being addressed; however, a minimum of one year for assessing the effectiveness of treatments for pulpitis and apical periodontitis should be considered. It is accepted, that selected research questions that focus on pain, swelling, medication taken or investigating diagnostic accuracy are likely to have shorter follow-up periods. As a result of the GDG consensus process, the outcome measures and length of follow-up will, alongside the use of standard instruments to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials and other comparative studies, be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3 Level Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Frightened of the pulp? A qualitative analysis of undergraduate student confidence and stress during the management of deep caries and the exposed pulp.

AIM: To evaluate sources of student confidence and stress during the management of deep carious lesions and the exposed pulp during undergraduate clinics. Further aims were to identify barriers and facilitators, which could result in educational or practical improvements in the delivery of teaching and provision of treatment in this area. METHODOLOGY: A exploratory qualitative study design was used, based on recorded focus group interviews, guided by 12 predetermined questions. The discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed by inductive qualitative content analysis. Common categories were identified to aid understanding. Forty undergraduate dental students from 4th and 5th years in Dublin Dental University Hospital participated in the study. RESULTS: Student stress and confidence were multifactorial and broadly linked to specific domains: clinical procedure, academic education, clinical training, evaluation/grading, organization and equipment, vital pulp biomaterial and the patient. Most students expressed a preference for one-stage selective carious removal to soft dentine rather than potential pulp exposure in deep carious lesions, noting that although it helped to decrease their immediate stress, it also caused longer-term concern by leaving caries close to the pulp. Nevertheless, their confidence was affected by limited clinical experience of carrying out selective removal procedures in deep caries. A recurrent finding was students citing high levels of stress after pulp exposure. Feelings including anger, fear, embarrassment and denial were associated with pulp exposure during deep caries management. Generally, the students felt able to manage pulp capping procedures, but were less certain about partial pulpotomy, suggesting that although they are aware of its advantages, they were unsure about the appropriate volume of pulp tissue to remove. To reduce stress, students suggested that laboratory teaching should employ new 3-D printed solutions and clinics should establish clear consensus amongst supervising teachers about the best way to manage the exposed pulp. CONCLUSIONS: Students lacked confidence as they neared the pulp and prefer selective caries removal techniques, which reduce the likelihood of pulp exposure. Students identified stressors and suggested improvements in several domains that would improve confidence. These ameliorations could lead to enhancements in student ability to perform these conservative techniques, and improve the provision of treatment in this area.

Efficacy of direct pulp capping for management of cariously exposed pulps in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of vital pulp treatment after carious pulp exposure is multifactorial and related to the procedure, biomaterial and pre-operative pulpal diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis determining the outcome of direct pulp capping (DPC) in mature permanent teeth with a cariously exposed pulp and a clinical diagnosis of reversible pulpitis, and ascertain whether the capping material influences the outcome. METHODS: Sources: MEDLINE Ovid-SP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase and Web of Science until April 2020. Inclusion: Prospective, retrospective cohort studies and randomized trials investigating DPC outcome or comparing different capping materials after carious pulp exposure. Exclusion: Primary teeth, mechanical, traumatic or not specified pulp exposure, teeth with irreversible pulpitis or no pulpal diagnosis. Risk of bias assessed using Cochrane and modified Downs and Black quality assessment checklist. Meta-analysis on combined clinical/radiographic outcome was performed using a random effect model. Success was defined as absence of signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis, apical periodontitis or loss of pulp vitality. RESULTS: Quality assessment highlighted four non-randomized studies to be of fair and five of poor quality. Four randomized trials had a high risk of bias. The pooled success rate differed based on material and follow-up. Calcium hydroxide success rate was 74% at 6-months, 65% at 1-year, 59% at 2-3 years and 56% at 4-5 years. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) success was 91%, 86%, 84% and 81% at the same time points. Biodentine success was 96% at 6-months, 86% at 1 year and 86% at 2-3 years. The meta-analysis revealed MTA had better success than calcium hydroxide at 1-year (OR 2.66, 95% CI; 1.46- 4.84, P = 0.001) and 2- to 3-year follow-up (OR 2.21, 95% CI; 1.42-3.44, P = 0.0004). There was no difference between MTA and Biodentine. DISCUSSION: These results were based on poor methodological quality studies. The effect size for of MTA vs Ca(OH)2, although modest, was consistent with narrow CI. CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence suggests a high success rate for direct pulp capping in teeth with cariously exposed pulps with better long-term outcomes for MTA and Biodentine compared with calcium hydroxide.

Glossary for randomized clinical trials.

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.

The management of deep carious lesions and the exposed pulp amongst members of two European endodontic societies: a questionnaire-based study.

AIMS: To investigate and compare views on management of deep caries and the exposed pulp by Endodontic Society members in Ireland (Irish Endodontic Society [IES]) and Italy (Accademia Italiana di Endodonzia [AIE]). Further aims were to investigate the influence of patient-related factors (age, symptoms) and operator-related factors (material choice, antibiotics) on management. METHODOLOGY: A structured online questionnaire containing two cases (an 18- and 45-year-old) and two scenarios (± mild symptoms), including history and radiograph, was sent to IES and AIE members. The answers were analysed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: In total, 120 dentists participated, representing 49% of the AIE and 48% of the IES membership. Age distribution was similar between the societies; however, most AIE members had no further qualifications (63%), while IES respondents generally had a postgraduate endodontic qualification (71%). AIE respondents carried out a larger volume of vital pulp treatment (VPT) per month, with 69% carrying out over five cases, compared with 22% of IES respondents. The presence of patient symptoms significantly altered treatment planning decisions (P < 0.001) with root canal treatment (RCT) more frequently selected in both societies. Patient age significantly influenced treatment choice in the absence (P = 0.043) or presence (P = 0.012) of symptoms with less VPT advocated in older patients. There were no significant differences in the treatment of a young patient in the presence (P = 0.302) or absence of symptoms (P = 0.297); however, older patient management differed between the societies for symptomatic (P = 0.041) and asymptomatic scenarios (P = 0.044) with significantly more RCTs carried out in the AIE than the IES. Hydraulic calcium silicate materials were commonly selected, accounting for 81% of IES and 69% of AIE VPT materials, although younger members of the AIE preferred calcium hydroxide materials. Younger dentists in both societies prescribed less RCT than older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although VPT is carried out by members of both societies there was no consistency regarding the most appropriate management for the exposed pulp or the VPT material of choice. Patient symptoms and age significantly influence the decision-making process and invasiveness of treatment. Hydraulic calcium silicate materials were the most commonly advocated material in all groups except young AIE members who preferred calcium hydroxide.

Comparison of two case difficulty assessment methods on cohorts of undergraduate dental students - a multi-centre study.

AIM: To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods. METHODOLOGY: A cohort (n = 206) of fourth-year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Group A and B). The participants assessed six test endodontic cases using anonymized versions of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) case difficulty assessment form (AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines, 2006) and EndoApp, a web-based CDA tool. Group A (n = 107) used the AAE form for assessment of the first three cases, followed by EndoApp for the latter. Group B (n = 99) used EndoApp for the initial three cases and switched to the AAE form for the remainder. Data were collected online and analysed to assess participants' knowledge reinforcement and agreement with the recommendation generated. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way mixed model anova, Cohen's Kappa (κ) and independent t-tests, with the levels of significance set at P < 0.05. Additionally, participants' feedback and preference for CDA was also gathered. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in knowledge reinforcement for the AAE form and EndoApp (P = 0.001) after assessment of the first three test cases. However, this increase was not significant (P = 0.842) between the CDA methods. Overall, the AAE form and EndoApp had slight (κ = 0.176, P < 0.001) and substantial (κ = 0.668, P < 0.001) levels of agreement, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Participants' feedback on user friendliness favoured EndoApp for all parameters measured. EndoApp was preferred by 65% of the cohort, whereas only 11% chose the AAE form for CDA. CONCLUSIONS: Both the AAE form and EndoApp were beneficial for dental education. EndoApp was reliable in helping with decisions to treat or refer, and combined with user friendliness, it was the preferred choice for CDA.

Association between cardiovascular diseases and apical periodontitis: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: The existence of an association between cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and apical periodontitis (AP) remains unclear because results obtained from previous clinical studies and reviews are inconsistent or inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults. METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality. DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.

Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) guidelines: a development protocol.

Observational studies have a significant role in establishing the prevalence and incidence of diseases in populations, as well as determining the benefits and risks associated with health-related interventions. Observational studies principally encompass cohort, case-control, case series and cross-sectional designs. Inadequate reporting of observational studies is likely to have a negative impact on decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice; however, no reporting guidelines have been published for observational studies in Endodontics. The aim of this project is to develop reporting guidelines for authors when creating manuscripts describing observational studies in the field of Endodontology in an attempt to improve the quality of publications. The new guidelines for observational studies will be named: 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE)'. A steering committee was formed by the project leaders (PD, VN) to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The steering committee will review and adapt items from the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as identify new items that add value to Endodontics. The steering committee will create a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG), consisting of 30 members across the globe to review and refine the draft checklist items and flowchart. The items will be assessed by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PROBE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) made up of 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. After receiving feedback from the PFMG, the steering committee will pilot and finalize the guidelines. The approved PROBE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, and be presented at national and international conferences. The PROBE checklist and flowchart will be available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontics (PRIDE) website: www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. The PROBE steering committee encourages clinicians, researchers, editors and peer reviewers to provide feedback on the PROBE guidelines to inform the steering group when the guidelines are updated.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: explanation and elaboration.

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/.

PRIRATE 2020 guidelines for reporting randomized trials in Endodontics: a consensus-based development.

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.