Outcomes of Primary Endodontic Therapy Provided by Endodontic Specialists Compared to Other Providers

Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of initial non-surgical root canal therapy (NSRCT) for different tooth types provided by both endodontists and other providers. Methods: Using an insurance company database, 487,476 initial NSRCT procedures were followed from the time of treatment to the presence of an untoward event indicated by Current Dental Terminology (CDT) codes for retreatment, apical surgery, or extraction. Population demographics were computed for provider type and tooth location. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for 1, 5, and 10 years. Hazard ratios for provider type and tooth location were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). Results: The survival of all teeth collectively was 98% at 1 year, 92% at 5 years, and 86% at 10 years. Significant differences in survival based on provider type were noted for molars at 5 years, and for all tooth types at 10 years. The greatest difference discovered was a 5% higher survival rate at 10 years for molars treated by endodontists. This was further evidenced by a hazard ratio of 1.394 when comparing other provider’s success to endodontists within this ten-year molar group. Conclusions: These findings show that survival rates of endodontically teeth is high at ten years post treatment regardless of provider type. Molars treated by endodontists after 10 years have significantly higher survival rates than molars treated by non-endodontists

Outcomes of Primary Endodontic Therapy Provided by Endodontic Specialists Compared with Other Providers

Introduction The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of initial nonsurgical root canal therapy for different tooth types provided by both endodontists and other providers. Methods By using an insurance company database, 487,476 initial nonsurgical root canal therapy procedures were followed from the time of treatment to the presence of an untoward event indicated by Current Dental Terminology codes for retreatment, apical surgery, or extraction. Population demographics were computed for provider type and tooth location. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for 1, 5, and 10 years. Hazard ratios for provider type and tooth location were calculated by using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results The survival of all teeth collectively was 98% at 1 year, 92% at 5 years, and 86% at 10 years. Significant differences in survival on the basis of provider type were noted for molars at 5 years and for all tooth types at 10 years. The greatest difference discovered was 5% higher survival rate at 10 years for molars treated by endodontists. A hazard ratio of 1.394 was found when comparing other providers\u27 success with that of endodontists within this 10-year molar group. Conclusions These findings show that survival rates of endodontically treated teeth are high at 10 years after treatment regardless of provider type. Molars treated by endodontists after 10 years have significantly higher survival rates than molars treated by non-endodontists

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021

Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021

Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families