Association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment in adults: An umbrella review

Background Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder among dental patients. The association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear. Aim To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment. Data source. The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (ID number: 141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions. Systematic reviews with or without meta‐analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer. Study appraisal and synthesis methods. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear. Results Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5‐7, out of a maximum score of 11 and all the systematic reviews were classified as “medium” quality. Limitations. Only two systematic reviews included a meta‐analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included. Conclusions and implications of key findings Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor

Preferred reporting items for animal studies in endodontology (PRIASE): a development protocol

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five‐step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9‐point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face‐to‐face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders

Guidelines for reporting the quality of clinical case reports in Endodontics: a development protocol.

Case reports are used to communicate interesting, new or rare condition/s, innovative treatment approaches or novel techniques. Apart from informing readers, such information has the potential to contribute towards further scientific studies and the development of newer management modalities. Reporting guidelines are used to inform authors of the quality standards required to ensure their case report is accurate, complete and transparent. The aim of this project is to develop and disseminate new guidelines - Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE). The primary aim is to aid authors when constructing case reports in the field of Endodontics to ensure the highest possible reporting standards are adopted. The project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee comprising of six additional members. Subsequently, a four-phase consensus process will be used: 1. Pre-online consensus activities (literature search, creating PRICE guidelines), 2. Online Consensus (Delphi Process), 3. Face-to-face consensus meeting, and 4. Post-meeting activities. The steering committee will develop the PRICE guidelines by identifying relevant items (quality standards) derived from the CAse REport guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles, focussing on the content of case reports. Following this, the steering committee will identify a PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) consisting of 30 members including academicians, practitioners, and members of the public. The individual items (components) of the PRICE checklist will be evaluated by the PDG based on a 9-point Likert scale. Only items scored between 7 and 9 by 70% or more members will be included in the draft checklist. The Delphi process will be continued until a consensus is reached and a final set of items agreed by the PDG members. Following this, a PRICE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) will be formed with 20 members to achieve a final consensus. The final consensus-based checklist and flow diagram will be evaluated and approved by selected members of the PDG and PFMG. The approved PRICE checklist will be published in relevant journals, and disseminated via contacts in academic institutions and national endodontic societies, as well as being presented at scientific/clinical meetings. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Glossary for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta‐analysis. A meta‐analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub‐optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed

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

Association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment in adults: an umbrella review

Background Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder among dental patients. The association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear. Aim To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment. Data source. The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (ID number: 141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions. Systematic reviews with or without meta‐analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer. Study appraisal and synthesis methods. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear. Results Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5‐7, out of a maximum score of 11 and all the systematic reviews were classified as “medium” quality. Limitations. Only two systematic reviews included a meta‐analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included. Conclusions and implications of key findings Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor

PRICE 2020 Guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: Explanation and elaboration.

Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org

PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus‐based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face‐to‐Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines

The Effect of Suturing Protocols on Coronally Advanced Flap Root-Coverage Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether suturing protocols (suture removal timing and/or type of suture material) influence root coverage outcomes in recession defects treated with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure. Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed single-tooth, Miller Class I/II recession defects, surgically treated by CAF. Mixed-effects linear regression analysis evaluated differences on complete root coverage (CRC) between RCTs with early (<10 days postoperatively) and late (≥10 days) suture removal, as well as between RCTs using absorbable and non-absorbable sutures removed ≥10 days postoperatively. Seventeen RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Overall, data from 325 single gingival recession defects revealed a statistically significant superior proportion of sites exhibiting CRC when sutures were removed ≥10 days postoperatively compared to those in which sutures were removed <10 days (P = 0.03). Conversely, there were no significant differences in CRC outcomes between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures when they were removed ≥10 days after surgery (P = 1.00). The majority of included RCTs (59%) reported use of non-absorbable suture materials. Within the limitations of the available data, it can be concluded that early suture removal (<10 days) can negatively influence root-coverage outcomes in single-tooth defects treated by a CAF procedure. There is a strong need for studies designed specifically to investigate suturing protocols in root-coverage procedures