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.

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.

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.