Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality. METHODS: Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%. RESULTS: A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores. DISCUSSION: Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores. CONCLUSION: In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Reporting quality of scoping reviews in endodontics: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in endodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and to analyse their association with a range of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics. METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 January 2024 to identify scoping reviews in the field of endodontics. An additional search was performed in three leading endodontic journals. Study selection and appraising the quality of the studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Each of the 20 PRISMA-ScR items were allocated a score of either 0, 0.5 or 1 to reflect the completeness of the reporting. An item-specific and overall percentage reporting quality score was calculated and reported through descriptive statistics across a range of publication, as well as methodological/reporting characteristics. A univariable and multivariable quantile regression was performed to identify the effect of publication and methodological/reporting characteristics (year of publication, journal, inclusion of an appropriate reporting guideline, and study registration) on the overall percentage reporting quality score. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was then investigated. RESULTS: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included for appraisal. Most of the studies were published from 2021 onwards. The overall median reporting quality score was 86%. The most frequent items not included in the studies were: a priori protocol registration (22/40 compliant; 55%), and reporting of funding (16/40 compliant; 40%). Other key elements that were inadequately reported were the abstract (7/40 compliant; 18%), the rationale and justification of the ScR (21/40 compliant; 52%) and the objectives of the study (18/40 compliant; 45%). Studies that adhered to appropriate reporting guidelines were associated with greater reporting quality scores (ß-coefficient: 10; 95%CI: 1.1, 18.9; p = .03). ScRs with protocols registered a priori had significantly greater reporting quality scores (ß-coefficient: 12.5; 95%CI: 6.1, 18.9; p < .001), compared with non-registered reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the ScRs in endodontics varied and was greater when the ScR protocols were registered a priori and when the authors adhered to reporting guidelines.

PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines are based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, with the addition of items specifically related to endodontics. The use of the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines by authors and their application by journals during the peer review process will reduce the possibility of bias and enhance the quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies. The PRIDASE 2024 guidelines consist of a checklist containing 11 domains and 66 individual items. The purpose of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item on the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, along with examples from the literature to help readers understand their importance and offer advice to those developing manuscripts. A link to the PRIDASE 2024 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/pridase/) and on the International Endodontic Journal website (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652591/homepage/pride-guidelines.htm).

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.

NOX5-induced uncoupling of endothelial NO synthase is a causal mechanism and theragnostic target of an age-related hypertension endotype.

Hypertension is the most important cause of death and disability in the elderly. In 9 out of 10 cases, the molecular cause, however, is unknown. One mechanistic hypothesis involves impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilation through reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation. Indeed, ROS forming NADPH oxidase (Nox) genes associate with hypertension, yet target validation has been negative. We re-investigate this association by molecular network analysis and identify NOX5, not present in rodents, as a sole neighbor to human vasodilatory endothelial nitric oxide (NO) signaling. In hypertensive patients, endothelial microparticles indeed contained higher levels of NOX5-but not NOX1, NOX2, or NOX4-with a bimodal distribution correlating with disease severity. Mechanistically, mice expressing human Nox5 in endothelial cells developed-upon aging-severe systolic hypertension and impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilation due to uncoupled NO synthase (NOS). We conclude that NOX5-induced uncoupling of endothelial NOS is a causal mechanism and theragnostic target of an age-related hypertension endotype. Nox5 knock-in (KI) mice represent the first mechanism-based animal model of hypertension.

Factors that influence the outcome of pulpotomy in permanent teeth.

The promotion of minimally invasive treatments focussed on the maintenance of pulp vitality has become a priority area in Endodontics. These vital pulp treatments (VPT) include partial and full pulpotomy, during which diseased coronal pulp tissue is removed prior to placement of a capping biomaterial and restoration. Traditionally, pulpotomies were confined to the treatment of carious primary and traumatized permanent teeth. However, these treatments have now been proposed as definitive solutions for cariously exposed permanent teeth with mild symptoms or even symptoms indicative of irreversible disease. Until recently, it was recommended that carious exposure of mature permanent teeth be managed by root canal treatment. The promotion of pulpotomy as an alternative treatment has opened up a wave of laboratory and clinical research aimed at improving therapies or evaluating clinical outcomes. In modern evidence-based endodontics, it is imperative that the outcomes of both partial and full pulpotomy are considered and important prognostic factors identified, so that improvements can be made to aid clinical decision-making and to direct new research. In this narrative review, the outcomes of partial and full pulpotomy are discussed, before analysis of patient, intraoperative and postoperative factors that influence the outcome of the pulpotomy procedure. The review highlights that although partial and full pulpotomy for the treatment of even pulpal disease are highly successful procedures, this is based on low-quality evidence with a lack of prospective, comparative trials investigating potential prognostic factors. Based on current evidence, it appears that age, gender, tooth type, root development and intraoperative pulpal haemorrhage do not impact significantly on pulpotomy outcome, whilst others such as caries depth, inflammatory status of the pulp, capping material, level of inflammatory pulpal-biomarkers and the final restoration integrity do. Other factors, including the influence of exposure type, periodontal condition, pulpal lavage, magnification, operator experience, isolation of the operating field and type of pulpotomy, require further experimental investigation before definitive conclusions can be made relating to the success of the pulpotomy procedure. Finally, there is not only a need for future well-designed prospective research addressing these issues but also a widening of our understanding of outcome to include patient-reported as well as clinician-reported outcomes.

The development of a dental light curable PRFe-loaded hydrogel as a potential scaffold for pulp-dentine complex regeneration: An in vitro study.

AIM: The study aimed to develop a bicomponent bioactive hydrogel formed in situ and enriched with an extract of platelet-rich fibrin (PRFe) and to assess its potential for use in pulp-dentine complex tissue engineering via cell homing. METHODOLOGY: A bicomponent hydrogel based on photo-activated naturally derived polymers, methacrylated chitosan (ChitMA) and methacrylated collagen (ColMA), plus PRFe was fabricated. The optimized formulation of PRFe-loaded bicomponent hydrogel was determined by analysing the mechanical strength, swelling ratio and cell viability simultaneously. The physical, mechanical, rheological and morphological properties of the optimal hydrogel with and without PRFe were determined. Additionally, MTT, phalloidin/DAPI and live/dead assays were carried out to compare the viability, cytoskeletal morphology and migration ability of stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAP) within the developed hydrogels with and without PRFe, respectively. To further investigate the effect of PRFe on the differentiation of encapsulated SCAP, alizarin red S staining, RT-PCR analysis and immunohistochemical detection were performed. Statistical significance was established at p < .05. RESULTS: The optimized formulation of PRFe-loaded bicomponent hydrogel can be rapidly photocrosslinked using available dental light curing units. Compared to bicomponent hydrogels without PRFe, the PRFe-loaded hydrogel exhibited greater viscoelasticity and higher cytocompatibility to SCAP. Moreover, it promoted cell proliferation and migration in vitro. It also supported the odontogenic differentiation of SCAP as evidenced by its promotion of biomineralization and upregulating the gene expression for ALP, COL I, DSPP and DMP1 as well as facilitated angiogenesis by enhancing VEGFA gene expression. CONCLUSIONS: The new PRFe-loaded ChitMA/ColMA hydrogel developed within this study fulfils the criteria of injectability, cytocompatibility, chemoattractivity and bioactivity to promote odontogenic differentiation, which are fundamental requirements for scaffolds used in pulp-dentine complex regeneration via cell-homing approaches.

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in Endodontics: A consensus-based development study.

Observational studies are non-interventional studies that establish the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations or analyse the relationship between health status and other variables. They also facilitate the development of specific research questions for future randomized trials or to answer important scientific questions when trials are not possible to carry out. This article outlines the previously documented consensus-based approach by which the Preferred Reporting items for Observational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023 guidelines were developed. A steering committee of nine members was formed, including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding several new items specifically for the specialty of Endodontics. The steering committee then established a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG) and a PROBE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to obtain expert input and feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. The PDG members participated in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items present in the PROBE checklist. The POMG then held detailed discussions on the PROBE checklist generated through the online Delphi process. This online meeting was held via the Zoom platform on 7th October 2022. Following this meeting, the steering committee revised the PROBE checklist, which was piloted by several authors when preparing a manuscript describing an observational study for publication. The PROBE 2023 checklist consists of 11 sections and 58 items. Authors are now encouraged to adopt the PROBE 2023 guidelines, which will improve the overall reporting quality of observational studies in Endodontics. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely available and can be downloaded from the PRIDE website (https://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

PROBE 2023 guidelines for reporting observational studies in endodontics: Explanation and elaboration.

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health-related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational-based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/).

Microstructure and color stability of calcium silicate-based dental materials exposed to blood or platelet-rich fibrin.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of blood and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), commonly used scaffolds in regenerative endodontic treatment (RET), on the hydration, microstructure, and color stability of three hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSCs), OrthoMTA, RetroMTA, and TotalFill-BC-RRM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HCSCs were prepared and placed into polyethylene molds and transferred to Eppendorf tubes containing PRF, blood, or PBS and then incubated for 1 week or 1 month. The microstructure and hydration of the cements were studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and X-ray diffraction (XRD). The chromatic alteration of materials was also measured using a spectrophotometer. The data for color stability were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the color stability of cements exposed to PBS (p > 0.05). The chromatic alteration of cements exposed to blood was significantly greater than those exposed to PRF and PBS (p < 0.001). In the presence of blood and PRF, the color change of OrthoMTA was significantly greater than that of RetroMTA and TotalFill (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between RetroMTA and TotalFill (p > 0.05). XRD analysis of all cements revealed a calcium hydroxide peak after 1-week and 1-month exposure to the media; however, OrthoMTA and TotalFill exposed to blood and PRF for 1 month showed weaker calcium hydroxide peaks. SEM images revealed cements exposed to PBS had a different surface microstructure compared to those exposed to blood and PRF. Furthermore, the surface microstructure of HCSCs was influenced by the type of cement radiopacifier (bismuth oxide or zirconium oxide). EDS analysis of the elemental composition in all groups displayed peaks of Ca, O, C, Si, P, and Al. CONCLUSIONS: Color stability, hydration behavior, and microstructure of HCSCs were affected by exposure to PRF and blood and the type of cement radiopacifier. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As some important physicochemical properties of HCSCs could be influenced by the environmental conditions and the type of radiopacifier, alternatives to blood clot and HCSCs containing substitutes for bismuth oxide might be more suitable in RETs.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist. METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12. RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items. CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

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.

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 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.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW.

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series in Endodontic journals.

AIM: To identify the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series published in Endodontic journals and to analyse their bibliometric characteristics. METHODOLOGY: The Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases were used to identify the top 100 most-cited case reports and case series in Endodontic journals. Complete bibliographic records of the selected case reports and case series were exported in plain text or BibTeX format and imported into the R environment for statistical computing and graphics. The following parameters were then analysed: names and affiliations of the authors, title, year of publication, journal of publication, first author, corresponding author, literature cited within reports, language, citation counts, impact factor of the journal, keywords, Keywords Plus and research topic. RESULTS: In total, 88 case reports and 12 case series published in English between 1977 and 2016 were identified as the most-cited reports in the field of Endodontics. The terms "case report(s)" or "case series" were not included in the title of 57 articles. The number of authors per report ranged from one to seven, with the average number of co-authors per report being 3.14. The most-cited author was M Trope (University of Pennsylvania, USA). The University of Washington and Private Practice, Cetraro, Italy, were the most productive institutions. The country whose case reports received the largest total number of citations was the United States. The largest number of the most-cited reports appeared in 2002, 2004 and 2007 (n = 7, respectively). According to the WoS database, the total number of citations ranged from 42 to 453, with the average number of citations per report being 79.97. The majority of the top 100 most-cited articles were published in the Journal of Endodontics and the International Endodontic Journal. The most frequently used author keywords were revascularization and mineral trioxide aggregate. The majority of the case reports and case series dealt with topics related to pulp regeneration. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive overview on the progress, trends and current directions in clinical practice within the field of Endodontics.

Advances in scaffolds used for pulp-dentine complex tissue engineering: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Pulp-dentine complex regeneration via tissue engineering is a developing treatment modality that aims to replace necrotic pulps with newly formed healthy tissue inside the root canal. Designing and fabricating an appropriate scaffold is a crucial step in such a treatment. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to review recent advances in the design and fabrication of scaffolds for de novo regeneration of pulp-dentine complexes via tissue engineering approaches. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Europe PMC, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. To highlight bioengineering techniques for de novo regeneration of pulp-dentine complexes, both in vitro and in vivo studies were included, and clinical studies were excluded. RESULTS: In the present review, four main classes of scaffolds used to engineer pulp-dentine complexes, including bioceramic-based scaffolds, synthetic polymer-based scaffolds, natural polymer-based scaffolds and composite scaffolds, are covered. Additionally, recent advances in the design, fabrication and application of such scaffolds are analysed along with their advantages and limitations. Finally, the importance of vascular network establishment in the success of pulp-dentine complex regeneration and strategies used to create scaffolds to address this challenge are discussed. DISCUSSION: In the tissue engineering platform, scaffolds provide structural support for cells to adhere and proliferate and also regulate cell differentiation and metabolism. Up to now, considerable progress has been achieved in the field of pulp-dentine complex tissue engineering, and a spectrum of scaffolds ranging from bioceramic-based to naturally derived scaffolds has been fabricated. However, in designing a suitable scaffold for engineering pulp-dentine complexes, a variety of characteristic parameters related to biological, structural, physical and chemical features should be considered. CONCLUSION: The variety of biomaterials and fabrication techniques provides a great opportunity to address some of the requirements for scaffolds in regenerative endodontics. However, more studies are required to develop an ideal scaffold for use in a clinical setting.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

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.

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.