A protocol for developing reporting guidelines for laboratory studies in Endodontology

Influence of kinematics and incidence angles on the cutting efficiency of two single-file nickel-titanium rotary instruments

To compare the cutting efficiency of F6 Sky Taper (F6ST) and One Curve (OC) with different kinematics and cutting inclinations. Cutting efficiency of 80 new F6ST and OC was tested at 90° and 70° inclination in relation to the sample, in continuous rotation and reciprocation, against standardised gypsum samples for 120 seconds using a customised device. Data expressed as weight loss and length of the sample cut were analysed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey t-test (P<.05). F6ST showed significantly higher cutting efficiency in reciprocation, while OC in continuous rotation. Regardless of inclination, F6ST showed statistically higher values than OC in reciprocation, while OC exhibited higher cutting ability in continuous rotation. The 70° inclination significantly improved the cutting efficiency of both files. Reciprocation improved the cutting efficiency of F6ST while continuous rotation enhanced cutting ability of OC. An inclined insertion improved the cutting ability, independently from the movement.

A critical appraisal of research methods and experimental models for studies on root canal preparation

It is the aim of this review to present a critical overview and summary on the contemporary possibilities, limitations and challenges of research related to root canal preparation. Frequently used research tools and contemporary research designs will be presented and discussed critically focussing on shortcomings and benefits with special regard to clinical relevance and scientific evidence. A plethora of experimental set-ups for assessing the shaping of root canals have been described in the endodontic literature using a considerable number of techniques and instruments. Nevertheless, it can be stated that scientific evidence demonstrating the clinical impact of many investigated topics is questionable or even missing. Instead of technical, radiographic and geometrical parameters, further research should focus on biological aspects and clinical evidence of the impact of root canal preparation on the outcome of root canal treatment.

Efficacy of Mouth Rinses Against SARS-CoV-2: A Scoping Review

Introduction:The presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in saliva and nasopharyngeal secretions has challenged the routine practice of dentistry. Use of preprocedural mouth rinses has been recommended by several organizations to potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This scoping review aimed at evaluating the available evidence on the efficacy of mouth rinses against SARS-CoV-2.

Methods:A thorough literature search on electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) was performed by two independent reviewers and data from articles addressing the aim of this article were extracted.

Results:After exclusion of articles not addressing the end point in question, 12 articles were included in this scoping review. Of the 12 articles, seven werein vitrostudies and five werein vivohuman clinical studies. Thein vitrostudies used a standardized methodology (endpoint dilution assay) to evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial mouth rinses against SARS-CoV-2. Thein vivostudies were done utilizing polymerase chain reaction assay of samples obtained from saliva or nasopharyngeal swab or a combination of both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab. The reagents tested in these studies included povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), essential oils, and quaternary ammonium compounds and demonstrated varied efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion:Based on the available evidence fromin vitrostudies, it can be concluded that mouth rinses have a potential to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load; however, effectiveness inin vivoconditions is still inconclusive. Owing to the substantial heterogeneity in reporting of the anti–SARS-CoV-2 efficacy of mouth rinses, this review highlights the need to conduct future research with robust and standardized methodologies to confirm effectiveness of mouth rinses.

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.

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.