Root canal morphology of primary maxillary second molars:a micro-computed tomography analysis

Aim Successful endodontic treatment of primary teeth requires comprehensive knowledge and understanding of root canal morphology. The purpose of this study was to investigate the root canal configurations of primary maxillary second molars using micro-computed tomography. Methods Extracted human primary maxillary second molars (n = 57) were scanned using micro-computed tomography and reconstructed to produce three-dimensional models. Each root canal system was analysed qualitatively according to Vertucci's classification. Results 22.8% (n = 13) of the sample presented with the fusion of the disto-buccal and palatal roots; of these, Type V was the most prevalent classification. For teeth with three separate roots (n = 44), the most common root canal type was Type 1 for the palatal canal (100%) and disto-buccal canal (77.3%) and Type V for the mesio-buccal canal (36.4%). Overall, 7% (n = 4) of mesio-buccal canals were 'unclassifiable'. Conclusion The root canal systems of primary maxillary second molars were not only complex but had a range of configurations that may contribute to unfavourable clinical outcomes after endodontic treatment

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