PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology.

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand-alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician-scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision-making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers, and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high-quality abstracts within Endodontology. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was undertaken to determine the clinical outcomes of resin modified glass-ionomer cement or glass-ionomer cement-resin composite (RMGIC/GIC-RC) laminate restorations and flowable resin composite (FRC)-lined RC restorations compared to that of non-laminate RC restorations. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched and filtered for relevant papers by assessing titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included, comparing the clinical performance of RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations and FRC-lined restorations with RC restorations as the control. The articles were categorized and critically appraised. Raw data were used for a fixed effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the review. Five evaluated FRC-lined restorations, and eight studies evaluated RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations, comparing with non-laminate RC restorations. Three of eight RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations assessed only postoperative sensitivity. A meta-analysis could only be conducted in three studies with the FRC-lined restorations as the intervention. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical failures between FRC-lined RC restorations and RC restorations with no lining (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current clinical evidence, a FRC lining is no more advantageous than RC restorations with no FRC lining. More long-term RCTs are required, particularly for evaluating RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations.

Factors influencing root canal retreatment strategies by general practitioners and specialists in Australia.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of tooth radiographic features on root canal retreatment strategies used by general dental practitioners and dental specialists in Australia. METHODS: A descriptive survey study comprising a web-based questionnaire was sent to general dental practitioners and specialists. The questionnaire diagrammatically represented six different clinical scenarios with variables including type of coronal restoration, quality of root filling and the size and presence of a periapical radiolucency. Treatment options included no treatment, orthograde retreatment, periapical surgery and replacement with an implant. For each of the six scenarios, the participant was asked to select a minimum size cut-off point where treatment would be initiated and also indicate the preferred treatment option. RESULTS: A total of 639 questionnaires were submitted online. In teeth without a cast core restoration, the quality of root filling influenced the selection of no treatment as an option (P < 0.001). The presence of a cast post/core restoration influenced both the treatment cut-off point and treatment option, with more practitioners selecting larger lesions as cut-off points (P < 0.001) and more treatment options involving both implant placement (P < 0.001) and periapical surgery (P < 0.001). With more complex treatment planning (i.e. cast post/core restorations and inadequate root filling), general practitioners proposed implant placement more readily compared with specialists (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners and specialists vary their root canal retreatment strategies according to quality of root filling and type of coronal restoration. Whilst all clinical scenarios could be managed by contemporary endodontic techniques, teeth were still treatment planned for extraction and replacement with an implant. This may be due to the fact that implants are heavily marketed by the dental industry and with more stringent outcome criteria applied to the assessment of root canal treatment compared with implant placement, evidence-based decision-making may be distorted. Future emphasis should be placed on changing practitioners' attitudes towards the retention of salvageable teeth by contemporary endodontic measures.

Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols.

AIM: To compare the smear layer and debris removal effectiveness of four root canal irrigation protocols as well as their effectiveness in removing remaining soft tissues in curved root canals. METHODOLOGY: The mesiobuccal and mesial root canals of 107 extracted human maxillary and mandibular molars were instrumented using Mtwo rotary NiTi instruments then randomly divided into four groups according to a final rinse protocol: Group 1 (n = 28) - manual agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 2 (n = 26) - CanalBrush agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 3 (n = 26) - 3% H(2) O(2) alternated with 1% NaOCl; Group 4 (n = 27) - passive ultrasonic agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA. All irrigation protocols were performed in a closed system. Eleven roots per group were prepared and histologically stained (H&E) to assess percentage of remaining pulpal tissues in the apical thirds. The remaining specimens were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope at ×2000 magnification to assess smear layer and debris removal. Image Pro Plus 6.0 software was used to analyse smear layer and remaining pulp tissue. Debris presence was scored by two blinded investigators using a five-point scale. Data were analysed using Univariate analysis of variance (GenStat 13, α = 0.05). RESULTS: CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic irrigation were equally effective with significantly less smear layer and debris than manual agitation and H(2) O(2) alternated with NaOCl (P < 0.05). The H(2) O(2) alternated with NaOCl protocol was significantly more effective in removing pulp tissue remnants in the apical level than manual agitation (P = 0.009) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CanalBrush was as effective as passive ultrasonic irrigation in smear layer and debris removal. Alternating H(2) O(2) with NaOCl was effective in removing soft tissues from root canal complexities. Further studies are required to evaluate effectiveness of this regimen taking into account irrigant volume differences and effect of root canal system configuration.

Australian endodontists' perceptions of single and multiple visit root canal treatment.

AIM: To ascertain endodontist's point of view (treatment philosophy, rationale and preference) regarding single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment. To identify the basis on which the choice is made and how the information necessary for the choice is acquired. METHODOLOGY: Endodontists registered with the dental practice board of every state in Australia were contacted, and if they agreed to participate, they were interviewed either face to face or by telephone. The following topics were addressed in an interview lasting 15 to 20 min: demographics, current clinical procedures, treatment rationales and preference. A hypothetical scenario was posed to investigate which treatment regimen they would prefer to deliver if biological concerns were eliminated from consideration. RESULTS: Fifty-two endodontists (71% of all Australian endodontists) agreed to participate in the study. Almost all (51/52) participants had performed single-visit root canal treatment, but very few routinely performed it. A majority of participants were willing to provide single-visit treatment where patients had time constraints, and in vital cases (including elective endodontics). The most powerful factor of influencing practice change was interpersonal contact with colleagues. Publications in academic journals have a weak influence in practice change. CONCLUSIONS: Australian endodontists strongly prefer multiple-visit over single-visit root canal treatment even in cases where biological concerns are not an issue. Operator preference rather than biological or patient considerations appear to be the primary determinant of treatment choice.

The prevalence of postoperative pain and flare-up in single- and multiple-visit endodontic treatment: a systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding postoperative pain and flare-up of single- or multiple-visit root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research. REVIEW METHODS: The included clinical studies compared the prevalence/severity of postoperative pain or flare-up in single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment. Data in those studies were extracted independently. RESULTS: Sixteen studies fitted the inclusion criteria in the review, with sample size varying from 60 to 1012 cases. The prevalence of postoperative pain ranged from 3% to 58%. The heterogeneity amongst included studies was far too great to conduct meta-analysis and yield meaningful results. CONCLUSION: Compelling evidence indicating a significantly different prevalence of postoperative pain/flare-up of either single- or multiple-visit root canal treatment is lacking.

Questions and answers in evidence-based patient care.

Evidence-based healthcare has become the mainstream of current healthcare practices, yet there seem to be many misunderstandings concerning this concept. This paper reviews several aspects of the concept of evidence-based healthcare in a simple question-and-answer format. The areas considered include: the significance of the evidence-based concept in clinical practice, the method of conducting a detailed electronic search of the literature, and the interpretation and application of research evidence to patients and immediate clinical applications.

Contemporary treatment of class II dens invaginatus.

AIM: To present the nonsurgical management of a tooth with class II dens invaginatus with an open apex utilizing contemporary techniques. SUMMARY: Root canal treatment of teeth with complex root canal anatomy such as dens invaginatus can be problematic because infected pulpal tissues may remain in inaccessible areas of the canal system. The cleaning and debridement of such root canal systems are therefore challenging and may sometimes be considered impossible. An immature apical root-end development is another challenge in root canal treatment especially in controlling the apical extent of the filling material and achieving an apical seal. When difficulties in cleaning and filling combine, management options may include surgical intervention or extraction. This article reports the nonsurgical endodontic treatment of a case of an open apex and dens invaginatus utilizing the operating microscope, endodontic ultrasonic instruments and mineral trioxide aggregate. KEY LEARNING POINT: Teeth with class II dens evaginatus and an open apex may be managed successfully with contemporary nonsurgical materials and techniques.

Antibacterial efficacy of calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To determine to what extent does calcium hydroxide intracanal medication eliminate bacteria from human root canals, compared with the same canals before medication, as measured by the number of positive cultures, in patients undergoing root canal treatment for apical periodontitis (teeth with an infected root canal system). METHODOLOGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through the Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research. REVIEW METHODS: The included studies were pre-/post-test clinical trials comparing the number of positive bacterial cultures from treated canals. Data in those studies were independently extracted. Risk differences of included studies were combined using the generic inverse variance and random effect method. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in the review, covering 257 cases. Sample size varied from 18 to 60 cases; six studies demonstrated a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-medicated canals, whilst two did not. There was considerable heterogeneity among studies. Pooled risk difference was -21%; 95% CI: -47% to 6%. The difference between pre- and post-medication was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Calcium hydroxide has limited effectiveness in eliminating bacteria from human root canal when assessed by culture techniques.

Effectiveness of single- versus multiple-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The clinical question this review aimed to answer is: does single-visit root canal treatment without calcium hydroxide dressing, compared to multiple-visit treatment with calcium hydroxide dressing for 1 week or more, result in a lower healing (success) rate (as measured by clinical and radiographic interpretation)? METHODOLOGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and HEALTH STAR databases were used. Reference lists from identified articles were scanned. A forward search was undertaken on the authors of the identified articles. Papers that had cited these articles were also identified through Science Citation Index to identify potentially relevant subsequent primary research. REVIEW METHODS: The included studies were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing healing rate of single- and multiple-visit root canal treatment in humans. The outcome measured was healing of radiographically detectable lesions. Data in those studies were independently extracted. RESULTS: Only three RCTs were identified and included in the review, covering 146 cases. Sample size of all three studies was small; none demonstrated a statistically significant difference in healing rates. Risk differences of included studies were combined using the inverse variance-weighted method (RD(Pooled) = -6.3%; 95% CI: -20.3-7.8). CONCLUSION: Based on the current best available evidence, single-visit root canal treatment appeared to be slightly more effective than multiple visit, i.e. 6.3% higher healing rate. However, the difference in healing rate between these two treatment regimens was not statistically significant (P = 0.3809).