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

Comparison between two methods of working length determination and its effect on radiographic extent of root canal filling: a clinical study [ISRCTN71486641]

BACKGROUND: Obtaining a correct working length is critical to the success of endodontic therapy. Different methods have been used to identify this crucial measurement. The Aim of this clinical study was to compare the effect of working length determination using apex locator alone or in combination with working length radiograph on the apical extent of root canal filling. METHODS: A total number of 66 patients, 151 canals were randomized into two groups, In group (I) working length was determined by apex locator alone, while in group (II) working length was determined by apex locator confirmed by working length radiograph, length of obturation was assessed, and the total number of radiographs was recorded. The data were analyzed using SAS system and T. tests were carried out. Statistical significance was considered to be P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Sixty seven canals in group I were treated with a mean distance from the tip of root canal filling to radiographic apex -0.5 mm ± 0.5 and a mean of a total number of radiographs of 2.0, while in group II eighty four canals were treated with a mean distance from the tip of root canal filling to radiographic apex -0.4 mm ± 0.5 and a mean of a total number of radiographs of 3.2. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean distance from the tip of root filling to radiographic apex between group I and group II (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The practice of using electronic apex locator in the determination of working length is useful and reliable with no statistical difference of the radiographic extent of root canal filling when using apex locator alone or in combination with working length radiograph. Under the clinical conditions of this study, it is suggested that the correct use of an apex locator alone could prevent the need for further diagnostic radiographs for determination of working length. This method can be useful in patients who need not to be exposed to repeated radiation because of mental, medical or oral conditions

Cross-sectional evaluation of the periapical status as related to quality of root canal fillings and coronal restorations in a rural adult male population of Turkey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To determine the prevalence of periapical lesions in root canal-treated teeth in a rural, male adult, Turkish population and to investigate the influence of the quality of root canal fillings on prevalence of periapical lesions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The sample for this cross-sectional study consisted of 552 adult male patients, 18-32 years of age, presenting consecutively as new patients seeking routine dental care at the Dental Sciences of Gulhane Military Medicine, Ankara. The radiographs of the 1014 root canal-treated teeth were evaluated. The teeth were grouped according to the radiographic quality of the root canal filling and the coronal restoration. The criteria used for the examination were slightly modified from those described by De Moor. Periapical status was assessed by the Periapical Index scores (PAI) proposed by Orstavik.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall success rate of root canal treatment was 32.1%. The success rates of adequately root canal treatment were significantly higher than inadequately root canal treatment, regardless of the quality or presence of the coronal restoration (P < .001). In addition, the success rate of inadequate root canal treatment was also significantly affected by the quality of coronal restorations.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results revealed a high prevalence of periapical lesions in root canal treatment, which is comparable to that reported in other methodologically compatible studies from diverse geographical locations. In addition, the results from the present study confirm the findings of other studies that found the quality of the root canal treatment to be a key factor for prognosis with or without adequate coronal restoration.</p

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