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

Effect of Calcium Hydroxide Dressing on the Dentinal Tubule Penetration of 2 Different Root Canal Sealers: A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopic Study

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]2) dressing on the dentinal tubule penetration of epoxy resin–based sealer (AH 26; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and tricalcium silicate–based sealer (BioRoot RCS; Septodont, Saint Maurdes Fosses, France). Methods: Fifty-two single-rooted mandibular premolars were used. Four samples were assigned as the positive control. Twenty-four samples received Ca(OH)2 labeled with rhodamine B, whereas the rest did not. Ca(OH)2 was removed with passive ultrasonic activation and copious irrigation 2 weeks later. Samples were further subdivided into 2 groups, and root canal fillings were performed with a single ProTaper F4 gutta-percha cone (Dentsply Maillefer) combined with 1 of the tested sealers labeled with fluorescein green. After 2 weeks, samples were transversely sectioned at the apical, middle, and coronal levels. The penetration depth and percentage were evaluated via imaging software. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis, Siegel Castellan post hoc, and Mann-Whitney U tests at P =.05. Results: The mean dentinal tubule penetration depth and percentage values were lowest in the apical third for both sealers. BioRoot RCS showed higher penetrability in all thirds compared with AH 26 (P <.05) despite Ca(OH)2 dressing remnants (P <.05). Ca(OH)2 placement resulted in a shorter dentinal tubule penetration depth with BioRoot RCS statistically in the middle and coronal thirds (P <.05), whereas it did not affect the percentage (P >.05). Conclusions: Passive ultrasonic activation and copious irrigation were insufficient in removing Ca(OH)2 from root canals. BioRoot RCS presented higher dentinal tubule penetration than AH 26 even in the presence of Ca(OH)2 residues. Ca(OH)2 remnants decreased both dentinal tubule penetration depth and the percentage of the tested sealers; however, a more drastic effect was observed for AH 26. © 2018 American Association of Endodontist