Treatment of pulpal and apical disease: The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3-level clinical practice guideline.

BackgroundThe ESE previously published quality guidelines for endodontic treatment in 2006; however, there have been significant changes since not only in clinical endodontics but also in consensus and guideline development processes. In the development of the inaugural S3-level clinical practice guidelines (CPG), a comprehensive systematic and methodologically robust guideline consultation process was followed in order to produce evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients presenting with pulpal and apical disease.AimTo develop an S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease, focusing on diagnosis and the implementation of the treatment approaches required to manage patients presenting with pulpitis and apical periodontitis (AP) with the ultimate goal of preventing tooth loss.MethodsThis S3-level CPG was developed by the ESE, with the assistance of independent methodological guidance provided by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and utilizing the GRADE process. A robust, rigorous and transparent process included the analysis of relevant comparative research in 14 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, prior to evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific evidence and expert-based recommendations in a structured consensus process with leading endodontic experts and a broad base of external stakeholders.ResultsThe S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease describes in a series of clinical recommendations the effectiveness of diagnosing pulpitis and AP, prior to investigating the effectiveness of endodontic treatments in managing those diseases. Therapeutic strategies include the effectiveness of deep caries management in cases with, and without, spontaneous pain and pulp exposure, vital versus nonvital teeth, the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation, irrigation, dressing, root canal filling materials and adjunct intracanal procedures in the management of AP. Prior to treatment planning, the critical importance of history and case evaluation, aseptic techniques, appropriate training and re-evaluations during and after treatment is stressed.ConclusionThe first S3-level CPG in endodontics informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers, other stakeholders and patients on the available and most effective treatments to manage patients with pulpitis and AP in order to preserve teeth over a patient's lifetime, according to the best comparative evidence currently available

The change in self-efficacy of novice dentists in Endodontics within the first year following graduation from Aarhus University or the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam

Aim: To understand whether the self-efficacy of novice dentists in Endodontics changes within the first year following their graduation, and to reveal factors related to a possible change. Methodology: Data were obtained from dental graduates from Aarhus University, Denmark or from the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The 60 participants filled out the Endodontic General Self-Efficacy Scale questionnaire close to their graduation (baseline) and 1 year following their graduation (follow-up). Additionally, data on their experience in Endodontics within the first year following graduation were gathered, as well as data on their work environment, their referral behaviour and the postgraduation education they attended. For comparisons, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, Mann-Whitney tests, and t-tests were used. Referral behaviour and the change in self-efficacy were studied by multiple regression analyses. Results: Most participants showed an increase in self-efficacy after graduation. The increase in self-efficacy was higher for those whose baseline self-efficacy was lower, and lower for those whose baseline self-efficacy was higher. Self-efficacy increased with experience in performing root canal treatments within the first year following graduation. Participants with higher average self-efficacy (i.e. mean of baseline and follow-up self-efficacy) referred patients for endodontic surgery more often than participants with lower average self-efficacy did. Conclusions: The self-efficacy of novice dentists in Endodontics generally increased within the first year following their graduation. The increase in self-efficacy was greater for those who had low self-efficacy at graduation than for those who already had high self-efficacy. Performing root canal treatments was an important factor in increasing self-efficacy

Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on non‐surgical root canal treatment: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND: Studies related to non‐surgical root canal treatment are amongst the most frequently performed clinical studies in endodontics. However, heterogeneity in reporting outcomes and lack of standardization is a significant challenge to evidence synthesis and guideline development. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present scoping review were to (a) identify outcomes reported in systematic reviews evaluating non‐surgical root canal treatment; (b) identify how and when the reported outcomes were measured; (c) assess possible selective reporting bias in the included studies. The information obtained in this study should inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for non‐surgical root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Structured literature searches were performed to identify systematic reviews on non‐surgical root canal treatments published in English between January 1990 and December 2020. Two reviewers undertook study selection and data extraction. Outcomes were categorized according to a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas (survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use, and adverse events). The outcome measurement tools and length of follow‐up were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy‐five systematic reviews were included, of which 40 included meta‐analyses. Most reviews reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, primarily pain and/or radiographic assessment of periapical status, and a variety of measurement tools and scales were used. Few reviews focused on tooth survival, life impact, resources, and adverse events. The heterogeneity amongst the reviews was large on all parameters. Less than 40% of the reviews assessed the risk of selective reporting. DISCUSSION: Overall aims of the included reviews were highly heterogenic; thus, outcomes and how they were measured also varied considerably. Patient‐centred outcomes and the use of resources were rarely reported on. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported on physiological and clinical outcomes, in particular pain and/or radiographic healing. Measurement tools, scales, thresholds, and follow‐up periods varied greatly within each outcome, making comparison across studies complicated. Less than 40% of the reviews assessed risk of selective reporting; thus, selective bias could not be ruled out. The presented information on reported outcomes, measurement tools and scales, and length of follow‐up may guide the planning of future research and inform the development of a COS for non‐surgical root canal treatment

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 have 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 specialty 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 Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/probe/)

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/)