Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics ( PRIRATE ) guidelines: a development protocol

Effectiveness of root canal instrumentation for the treatment of apical periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The development of endodontic instruments has rapidly advanced, but their impact on endodontic outcome parameters remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICOT questions: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation ([Q1] performed with contemporary techniques [I] in comparison with 'traditional' techniques [C]] and ([Q2] performed with contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [I] compared with other types of contemporary engine-driven NiTi instruments [with different design and/or technology] [C]) in terms of clinical and patient-related outcomes (O)?

METHODS

After PROSPERO protocol registration, a literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature and major journal contents were examined. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was considered, and statistical heterogeneity and overall quality of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine studies were identified showing substantial methodological differences. Five studies addressed PICOT 1 and three PICOT 2, whereas one study aimed both. A random-effects meta-analysis model was considered for the outcome 'radiographic evidence of normal periodontal ligament space or reduction of apical lesion size' (PICOT 1) based on three studies with 332 evaluable participants and showed that contemporary instrumentation was associated with a more favourable outcome (p = .005) compared with root canal preparation with stainless steel instruments (odds ratio = 2.07 [95%-confidence interval = 1.25-3.44]) with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 0%) but low quality of evidence.

DISCUSSION

Albeit a few studies fulfilled eligible criteria, no study had a low risk of bias. Compelling evidence indicating significantly different outcome rates using different endodontic instruments when treating teeth with apical periodontitis is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of healing, the results of the meta-analysis determined the higher effectiveness of root canal instrumentation performed with contemporary techniques in comparison with conventional stainless steel instruments in patients with apical periodontitis followed for a minimum of 1 year with low quality of evidence. No differences could be demonstrated between preparations with traditional stainless steel and contemporary NiTi instruments for other clinical and patient-related outcomes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021274642).

Severity of Post-Operative Pain after Instrumentation of Root Canals by XP-Endo and SAF Full Sequences Compared to Manual Instrumentation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This investigation aimed to examine the post-operative pain experienced following single-visit root canal treatment using the XP-endo shaper sequence (XPS), full-sequence self-adjusting file (SAF), and manual K-files (HKF). A randomized equivalence parallel design, double-blinded clinical study was conducted on 120 patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, with or without clinical signs of apical periodontitis. Only teeth with fully formed roots and no periapical lesions were incorporated in the study. Patients were apportioned to one of three groups (n = 40) randomly: Group 1-XPS, Group 2-SAF, and Group 3-HKF. Pre- and post-instrumentation pain was rated utilizing Visual Analog Scale (VAS) with a spectrum of 0-100 mm. The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with 95% confidence intervals were used for statistical analysis. The mean VAS scores before instrumentation were consistent in all three groups. At 6, 24, 48, and 72 h, patients with root canals instrumented by SAF had the lowest post-instrumentation mean VAS score, followed by XPS. For all time intervals, the patients in the HKF group had the highest VAS score. The full-sequence SAF instrumentation resulted in less post-operative pain than the XP-endo plus protocol, while manual instrumentation with K-files resulted in the highest post-operative pain.

Publication bias in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. What factors affect statistical significance of outcomes?

OBJECTIVES

To record the proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting significant (versus non- significant) primary outcomes, published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined.

METHODS

We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021 in the two journals with the highest impact factors (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) from each of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/ Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Paediatric Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of significant/ non- significant findings reported for the primary outcomes under study, while a range of characteristics such as: journal, year of publication, impact factor, funding, registration and others, were tested for associations.

RESULTS

A total of 474 RCTs were identified and included, with the majority reporting statistically significant outcomes (321/474; 67.7%). The multivariable model revealed significant effects of predictors related to specialty domain (p = 0.01), continent (p = 0.003) and registration (p = 0.004). Compared to Periodontology, RCTs published in Endodontics (OR= 0.40; 95%CIs: 0.22, 0.76) and Orthodontics (OR= 0.41; 95%CIs: 0.23, 0.74) were less likely to present statistically significant effects. There was strong evidence that registered trials presented lower odds of reporting statistically significant findings (OR= 0.52; 95%CIs: 0.34, 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The entirety of dentistry domains demonstrated preferential publication practices of outcomes considered as "successful" and statistically significant, with domains such as Orthodontics and Endodontics being more balanced. Trial non- registration is still prevalent and associated with reporting of statistically significant effects.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The findings of this empirical report bring attention to the interpretation of Systematic Reviews (SRs) conclusions. These largely depend on the availability and nature of outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on a topic, which may impact on the synthesized estimate of a pooled effect and its direction.

Conventional vs ultrasonic irrigation - which leads to less post-operative pain?

Data sources Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey databases were systematically searched to find studies comparing post-operative pain experienced following root canal treatment with ultrasonic and conventional irrigation (up to May 2021). Hand searching of selected journals was also performed.Study selection Randomised controlled trials assessing post-operative pain experienced following primary non-surgical root canal treatment using conventional versus ultrasonic irrigation were screened. Exclusion criteria included an unsuitable follow-up period, systemic disease among the participants, severe pain, acute apical abscess diagnoses and fewer than 12 patients per trial arm. English language only studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and disagreements were resolved by consulting a third reviewer.Data extraction and synthesis Data extracted included tooth type, root type, pre-operative diagnosis, pain recording, time of pain recording, number of patients requiring analgesics and study conclusions. Meta-analyses of different post-operative time periods (6h, 24h, 48h, 72h and 7 days) were performed using a fixed-effects model to obtain a mean difference (with 95% confidence intervals) for post-operative pain. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration protocol for randomised controlled trials. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and modified via the 'trim-and-fill' method.Results A total of six articles were included in the systematic review, of which four were included in the meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias was deemed to be 'low' with one study presenting an unclear risk with respect to selection bias. Meta-analysis demonstrated that ultrasonic agitation significantly reduced post-operative pain compared to conventional irrigation at 6, 24 and 48 hours (p <0.05) but no significant differences were found at later time points.Conclusions Ultrasonic irrigation may lead to less post-operative pain compared to conventional irrigation techniques; however, the evidence base is limited and further research is needed to support these findings.

Microbial Contamination Comparison Between Cotton Pellet and Polytetrafluoroethylene Tape Endodontic Spacers: A Systematic Review

This systematic review compares polytetrafluoroethylene tape and cotton pellet when used as endodontic spacers underneath provisional restorations. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020176555). Studies that compared the microbial contamination between polytetrafluoroethylene tape and cotton pellet, when used as spacers, were included. Literature searches of Pubmed, Embase, EBSCOHost Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, Scopus, and Open Grey databases were conducted from their inception until May 2020 for studies in English or other Latin script languages. Hand searching of reference lists was performed. Three laboratory and three clinical studies were included. The risk of bias of the component studies varied widely. Results from the laboratory studies showed higher bacterial counts for cotton pellets. Results from the clinical studies showed that polytetrafluoroethylene tape was associated with a significantly lower incidence of microbial contamination. Findings were consistent throughout the studies, though the evidence available is scarce and heterogeneous. Polytetrafluoroethylene tape was associated with less microbial contamination when compared with cotton pellets as endodontic spacers and therefore appears to be a more suitable material for the purpose.

CONSORT Compliance in Randomized Clinical Trials of Regenerative Endodontic treatments of Necrotic Immature Teeth. A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate methodological quality of clinical trials in regenerative endodontics and its compliance with the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in eight electronic databases. Only clinical trials whose participants underwent regenerative endodontic treatment on necrotic permanent immature teeth were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool (RoB, version 2.0). Compliance of articles with the CONSORT guidelines was assessed by a tool with scales: 0 = no description, 1 = deficient, and 2 = adequate description, totaling a maximum score of 32 points. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the scores between journals, studies, country, income levels, and publication periods. Spearman correlation analyses were performed between CONSORT compliance scores and 2019 journal CiteScore values, publication year, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. The average CONSORT compliance score was 20.95 (±6.19). The better reported items were the description of the interventions performed in the trials (100%), followed by the description of the number of patients analyzed, losses and exclusions (90%) and the hypothesis tested (85%). Within the 20 studies, 3 articles were classified as "low risk of bias," 8 studies were classified as "some concerns" and 9 studies were considered "high risk of bias". Studies carried out in countries with higher income levels presented higher CONSORT scores. Significant moderate correlations were found between the CONSORT score and the percentage of risk of bias in low-risk domains (r_s = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.31 to 0.94, p = 0.003) and the overall risk of bias categories (r_s = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.54 to 0.98, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The adequacy of reporting based on the CONSORT checklist items of regenerative endodontic trials was low with a moderate to high risk of bias.

Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE): Guiding authors to produce high-quality manuscripts

Implementing evidence-based dentistry involves a systematic process that includes collecting and analyzing evidence to address a clinical question. However, the inadequacy of many manuscripts and the incomplete and often misleading information they provide when published in healthcare journals are of major concern. The literature confirms that reporting guidelines improve the overall completeness and transparency of manuscripts in the field of oral health research. To improve the overall quality and clinical translation of studies in Endodontology, a new suite of guidelines under the umbrella of the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) project has been developed. Under the PRIDE project, five reporting guidelines focusing on specific study designs within the specialty either have or are in the process of being developed: (Case reports: Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE); Randomized clinical trials: Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE); Laboratory studies: Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE); Animal studies: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) and Observational studies: Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE). For each guideline, the project leaders (VN, PD) formed a steering committee made up of experts from across the globe. Each steering committee developed an initial draft checklist containing a list of proposed items related to the specific study design to fit the specialty of Endodontology. In addition, a flowchart to graphically illustrate the process involved in the development of a manuscript was created to accompany each individual guideline. Each steering committee then formed a Delphi panel that included approximately 30 experts from across the globe who commented individually and anonymously upon the items to be included in each checklist and flowchart until a consensus was achieved. The draft checklists and flowcharts were then discussed during face-to-face or online meetings of approximately 20 experts to further debate and refine each guideline, which were then piloted by several authors while writing a manuscript. Eventually, each guideline (checklist and flowchart) will be published along with supporting material as well as being freely accessible on the PRIDE website (www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org). The PRIDE guidelines will help authors produce high-quality manuscripts in the discipline of Endodontology.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin

AIMS

To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.

METHODOLOGY

The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): A development protocol

Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The 'Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry' (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five-phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale ('well phrased' or 'needs revision') and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = 'definitely not include' to 9 = 'definitely include'). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face-to-face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org.

Is pulpotomy preferable to root treatment where there is pulp exposure?

Data sources Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Trip Pro, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicaTrials.gov, including a grey literature search.Study selection Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials (RCT).Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers screened independently and extracted data separately with focus on study and population characteristics, treatment, pulp capping materials and clinical and radiographical outcome measures. Incremental cost effective ratios were collated.Results Seventeen studies reported in 21 articles were included. Three were completed trials and one ongoing trial comparing (partial/full) pulpotomy with other interventions for vital pulp therapy. The remaining 13 studies compared hydraulic calcium silicate cements with calcium hydroxide. Only three studies were considered as low risk of bias, except for performance bias (the inherent impossible task of blinding the clinician). Five trials comparing the capping materials were the basis of a quantitative synthesis. No cost-effectiveness studies were found.Conclusions Firm evidence has not been reached with respect to pulpotomy being the preferred intervention substituting root canal treatment; however better pulpotomy outcomes were reported when hydraulic calcium silicate cements are used, when compared to procedures where calcium hydroxide was used.

Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: 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.