Glossary for randomized clinical trials

Randomized clinical trials are positioned at the highest level of primary clinical evidence, as they are designed to be unbiased with a reduced risk of systematic error. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first developed in 1996 to improve the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials with updates being published subsequently. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for the field of Endodontics to address the suboptimal quality of randomized clinical trials submitted to Endodontic journals, which result in many being rejected. A principal flaw in submissions is the fact that many authors are unclear on the keys terms that should be used when developing manuscripts for publication. Clearly, authors should be aware of the most common terms used when conducting and reporting randomized clinical trials. Hence, the aim of the current paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of the terminology used in randomized clinical trials in order to assist authors when designing, executing and writing-up randomized clinical trials

Comparing the anaesthetic efficacy of 1.8 mL and 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks for teeth with irreversible pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background The scientific literature is contradictory in relation to selecting the appropriate volume of local anaesthetic solution for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) when attempting to anaesthetize mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Objectives To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a ‘low’ risk of bias and one was categorized as having ‘some concerns’. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2 = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was ‘conclusive’. The quality of evidence was graded as ‘high’. Conclusion Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was ‘high’. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth

A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in endodontology

Laboratory‐based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory‐based articles submitted for publication fail the peer‐review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well‐conducted laboratory‐based articles are peer‐reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named–‘Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology’ (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five‐phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine‐point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face‐to‐face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically

Adhesives : tissue repair and reconstruction

In recent years, new modalities of tissue repair have emerged replacing traditional wound closure techniques such as suturing. Biocompatible adhesives are at the forefront of this “surgical revolution” as fi brin, polyethylene glycol and cyanoacrylate glues are currently used in clinical procedures. Other experimental adhesives appear to be very promising; in particular, those that mimic natural mechanisms of adhesion and are light-activated or incorporate nanoparticles and nanostructures