PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: A consensus-based development.

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

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 1: General introduction.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 4: Faceshields for the prevention of dental and oral trauma.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 5: Secondary prevention of dental injuries.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 3: Mouthguards for the prevention of dental and oral trauma.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 10: First aid education.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 2: Primary prevention of dental trauma across the life course.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 6: Education.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 8: ToothSOS app.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

Knowledge of undergraduate and postgraduate dental students about managing traumatic dental injuries based on the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines: A online survey of 10 dental schools from 10 countries.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The knowledge of dental students about managing traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) may not be uniform, depending on global location and dental education. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge of undergraduate and postgraduate students specializing in endodontics and pediatric dentistry at 10 dental schools in 10 countries about the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines regarding the management of TDIs. MATERIALS & METHODS: A previously published questionnaire was used in the current survey. It was an online survey with 12 questions regarding the management of TDIs and some additional questions regarding sociodemographic and professional profiles of the participants were added. The survey was distributed to final-year undergraduate students and postgraduate students in pediatric dentistry and endodontics from 10 dental schools. Simple frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were predominantly used to describe the data. Differences in the median percentage scores among the student categories were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 347 undergraduates, 126 postgraduates in endodontics, and 72 postgraduates in pediatric dentistry from 10 dental schools participated in this survey. The postgraduates had a significantly higher percentage score for correct responses compared with the undergraduates. No significant difference was observed between the endodontic and pediatric dentistry postgraduates. CONCLUSION: The knowledge possessed by undergraduate and postgraduate students concerning the IADT-recommended management of TDIs varied across the globe and some aspects were found to be deficient. This study emphasizes the critical importance of reassessing the teaching and learning activities pertaining to the management of TDIs.

Dental trauma education among Canadian dental schools: A Nationwide survey of dental trauma educators.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The extent of education regarding dental trauma within dental schools around the world is believed to be very diverse, but also largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze and depict the current curriculum regarding dental trauma education among all Canadian dental schools, in an effort to refine and consolidate the education system. METHODS: A survey was conducted over a scheduled meeting with dental trauma Instructors from all 10 dental schools in Canada. Questions were categorized into three sections investigating the dental trauma curriculum, the examinations/assessments of students, and the clinical exposure provided to students during the course of their dental studies. Data were first analyzed individually, and then common findings were grouped together. RESULTS: A total of 17 instructors were interviewed. In 9 out of the 10 universities, dental trauma education remains fragmented with an overall mean of only 4 ± 5.2 h allocated to teaching dental trauma throughout the dental courses. Only one single university reported testing students following the completion of their dental trauma course, and only one university conducted a final examination dedicated separately to dental trauma only. All instructors reported a lack of ample exposure to trauma cases during clinical rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Many deficiencies exist in teaching dental trauma among Canadian universities. Due to low clinical exposure, students might be under-prepared to clinically manage trauma cases. Also, the lack of unification in the curriculum creates confusion among students. Additional clinical exposure along with unification within, and between, dental schools could result in a more coherent and a better presented dental trauma curriculum.

Reporting guidelines enhance the quality and impact of research in Dental Traumatology.

Reporting guidelines assist basic scientists, translational healthcare researchers and clinicians to publish manuscripts of the highest standard by improving the accuracy, transparency and completeness of the publications they submit to journals. This paper provides an overview of reporting guidelines relevant for the specialty of dental traumatology and discusses their application, significance and potential impact. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) suite of reporting guidelines includes a range of study designs that can be used within the broad field of Endodontics but they are also applicable to dental traumatology and other dental disciplines (Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics [PRICE] 2020, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics [PRIRATE] 2020; Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology [PRIASE] 2021; Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology [PRILE] 2021 and Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics [PROBE] 2023). The PRIDE guidelines were developed by an extensive network of globally renowned academics, researchers and expert clinicians working within dentistry using an accepted and validated consensus methodology. The aim of the PRIDE guidelines is to improve the overall quality of manuscripts describing case reports, randomized trials, animal research, laboratory studies and observational studies. Although attention to reporting guidelines adds a degree of complexity when writing reports, such guidelines provide a template for authors to develop standardized manuscripts of the highest quality, which will allow colleagues, readers and the wider public to have confidence that their findings are valid and robust. They also provide evidence to editors that manuscripts submitted to journals comply with the highest global standards of reporting within their respective discipline. Endorsement of the PRIDE guidelines by editors will lead to improvements in the reporting quality of manuscripts submitted to their journals.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%. RESULTS: Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores. CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.

Dental patient-reported outcomes following traumatic dental injuries and treatment: A narrative review.

Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are self-reported descriptions of a patient's oral health status that are not modified or interpreted by a healthcare professional. Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) are objective or subjective measurements used to assess dPROs. In oral healthcare settings, the emphasis on assessing treatment outcomes from the patient's perspective has increased and this is particularly important after traumatic dental injuries (TDIs), as this group of injuries represent the fifth most prevalent disease or condition worldwide. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current use of dPROs and dPROMs in the field of dental traumatology. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, pain, swelling, aesthetics, function, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, number of clinical visits and trauma-related dental anxiety are the key dPROs following TDIs. Clinicians and researchers should consider the well-being of patients as their top priority and conduct routine evaluations of dPROs using measures that are appropriate, accurate and reflect what is important to the patient. After a TDI, dPROs can assist clinicians and patients to choose the best management option(s) for each individual patient and potentially improve the methodology, design and relevance of clinical studies.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of case reports focusing on dental traumatology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics 2020 checklist: A baseline evaluation prior to checklist publication.

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

Dental students' knowledge of and attitudes towards prescribing medication in Western Australia.

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

Present status and future directions: Managing endodontic emergencies.

Endodontic emergencies are common in both general dental practices and specialist Endodontic practices. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of endodontic emergencies. Endodontic emergencies can be a result of many different conditions of the pulp, root canal and periradicular tissues. They may occur before endodontic treatment has been started, between appointments when treatment is being performed over multiple visits, or after endodontic treatment has been completed. In the latter situation, the emergency may be very soon after the treatment or it may occur many years later, in which case it is usually a new disease process as a result of the root canal system becoming infected. An emergency can be a stressful situation for both the patient and the dentist (or endodontist) as it is usually an unexpected event. It is incumbent on dental professionals to provide timely assistance to patients who have an emergency, and it is also important to allow sufficient time to manage the situation comprehensively. Management of endodontic emergencies should follow the principles of the 3D's-Diagnosis, Definitive dental treatment and Drugs-and in that sequence. An accurate diagnosis, the first "D", is essential so the appropriate treatment can be provided. Diagnosis requires a thorough understanding of the various conditions that can cause the emergency and this can be helped by having a comprehensive classification of the various conditions. The diagnosis should also direct the clinician to the appropriate Definitive dental treatment, the second "D". Root canal treatment will not always be required as some cases can be managed conservatively. Other cases may require root canal re-treatment. The specific details of how the treatment are done can also vary, according to the diagnosis. The final "D" is Drugs-the use of drugs should also be dependent on the diagnosis and the dental treatment. Drugs should only be an adjunct following the treatment. The clinician must also differentiate between inflammation and infection in order to provide the appropriate treatment and to prescribe the appropriate medication for effective pain relief and resolution of other symptoms or signs such as swelling.

Present status and future directions-Mechanisms and management of local anaesthetic failures.

AIM: To review variables and management techniques that may affect anaesthesia failure during root canal treatment and methods of overcoming anaesthesia failure. METHODOLOGY: The PubMed and Cochran databases were searched for evidence-based investigations regarding pain during needle insertion, pain on injection, efficacy of the anaesthetic solutions and anaesthesia techniques, and premedication. RESULTS: Variables such as pain on injection, premedication with various types of drugs, volume of anaesthetic solutions, supplemental anaesthetic techniques, and additives to the anaesthetic solutions may influence pain perception during root canal treatment. Differences between teeth with healthy pulps versus those with irreversible pulpitis should be considered when the effects of variables are interpreted. However, there are several concerns regarding the methodology of investigations that have evaluated anaesthesia success rates. CONCLUSION: Several variables may influence anaesthesia success rates. There are conditions that may help to predict a patient's pain during endodontic procedures. These conditions could be overcome either by employing methods such as premedication with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prior to the treatment visit or by using supplementary techniques before or during the treatment. However, investigators need to be more careful when reporting details of their studies to reduce concerns regarding their study bias.

A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study tooth discolouration from endodontic materials.

As a range of materials used in endodontics may cause tooth discolouration, exploration of factors responsible for the darkening of the tooth crown or root is warranted. This narrative review paper discusses the range of technical factors that apply in laboratory studies that assess endodontic discolouration. As an example of how these factors operate, particular examples relating to discolouration caused by endodontic medicaments containing tetracycline antibiotics are used. Following the PRILE 2021 guideline approach, a summary of key variables to be addressed in the methodology for laboratory studies is presented, to inform future work.

Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: A development protocol.

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.