A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 2: Outcome Measures.

INTRODUCTION: Inconsistencies in the definitions of endodontic outcome terminology jeopardize evaluations of proposed interventions and patient care quality. This scoping review aimed to provide groundwork to develop a set of basic outcomes in endodontics. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 with patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment, retreatment, or apexification. Abstracted data on outcome assessment methods, assessors, and domains were reported after univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Treatment outcomes were evaluated radiographically (88%) or clinically (73%). Although 2-dimensional radiography exceeded 3-dimensional radiography, the use of the latter has increased since 2010, mostly for nonsurgical retreatments. Of 19 identified outcomes, 5 were most frequent: success (168 studies, 40%), radiographic healing (128 studies, 30%), survival (of an asymptomatic tooth [48 studies, 12%] or of a procedure code in administrative databases [31 studies, 7%]), pain assessment (14 studies, 3%), and quality of life (11 studies, 3%). Clinician-centered outcomes have been most frequently studied since the 1980s (71%), in academic settings (76%), and using a prospective design (45%). Patient-centered outcomes were reported in 19% of studies before 2010 and 30% since 2010. They were more common among retrospective studies (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered outcome measures are lacking in endodontic studies. The state of available research can provide a baseline for the development of a core outcome set in endodontics, which should represent the important patient-centered outcomes in conjunction with well-validated clinician-centered outcomes.

A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 1: Process and General Results.

INTRODUCTION: Despite initiatives to standardize reports, variances in study design, outcomes assessed, and tools used are persistent in the literature. This review scoped the existing literature on endodontic outcome studies for future development of core outcome sets. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 including patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment (NS-RCT), retreatment (NS-ReTx), or apexification was performed. Abstracted data were reported through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 9957 studies screened, 354 were included. An increase in the quantity of endodontic outcome publications and levels of evidence in their study design was noted over the past 4 decades. Although 41% of the studies included participants 26-50 years of age, literature including participants >50 years old has increased since 2000. Apexification and NS-ReTx were mostly provided by specialists and postgraduate students. The most common follow-up period was 2-5 years (35%), and most randomized controlled trials (58%) reported follow-up times <1 year. Multiple-visit treatment was most common in apexification studies (85%). Deficiency, inconsistency, and ambiguity were observed across many reports. CONCLUSIONS: NS-ReTx and NS-RCT/NS-ReTx studies have increased over the past 2 decades, particularly those focusing on molars and patients >50 years old. Despite the progress in endodontic research, heterogeneity in reporting styles yields considerable limitations, particularly data standardization challenges and inconsistencies in methods and results reporting. This scoping review highlighted the state of available research and supported the development of standardized guidelines for future investigations.

Efficacy and safety of different interventions to accelerate maxillary canine retraction following premolar extraction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Decreasing orthodontic treatment duration is at the forefront of innovation for clinical orthodontics. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy and safety of treatments for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in patients undergoing extraction of maxillary first premolars followed by canine retraction in any orthodontic setting. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched (from inception to 20 April 2020). Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analysed to estimate the rate of tooth movement, 95% credible interval and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) in the first 3 months following the application of the adjunctive accelerative method. Eligible RCTs were assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE approach, obtained from CINeMA web application. Interventions were ranked for efficacy and reviewed for safety. Nineteen studies pertaining to eight interventions, with data from 415 patients were included. Quality of evidence was very low to moderate. Very low-to low-quality evidence suggests that corticotomy is an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment to accelerate OTM in comparison with conventional treatment in the first 2 months of treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that piezocision and micro-osteoperforations (MOP) are efficacious and safe adjunctive treatments only in the first month of treatment. Frequent MOP in conjunction with low-level laser therapy appeared to be an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment only in the first month following its initial application but not thereafter.