International Endodontic Journal policy on mandatory prospective (a priori) protocol registration for clinical trials and systematic reviews

Efficacy of Premedication With Ketorolac on Anaesthetic Success of Mental-Incisive Nerve Blocks With Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis: A Randomised Clinical Trial

This trial aimed to compare the success of mental-incisive nerve blocks (MINB) on mandibular premolars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) after oral premedication using 10 mg ketorolac or a placebo. One hundred and two patients were randomly divided into two groups. One hour prior to the administration of a MINB the patients were administered oral premedication's of either ketorolac or dextrose (placebo). The success of anaesthesia was verified by the absence of pain during the access cavity preparation or root canal instrumentation. Descriptive analysis was performed and categorical data were analysed using chi-squared tests. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship among age, sex, type of premedication taken, preoperative pain score and tooth length to the pain outcome. The efficacy of MINB on mandibular premolars with SIP was not influenced significantly by the preoperative oral administration of ketorolac. Trial Registration: CTRI/2021/11/038115.

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

METHODS

Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.

DISCUSSION

Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores.

CONCLUSION

In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Effectiveness of pulpotomy compared with root canal treatment in managing non-traumatic pulpitis associated with spontaneous pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain can result in debilitating pain. Dogma has existed to offer only have two treatment options, namely root canal treatment (RCT) or extraction, although pulpotomy has always remained a potential treatment modality.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to answer the following research question: 'Does pulpotomy (partial or full) (I) result in better patient and clinical reported outcomes (O), compared with RCT (C) in permanent teeth with pulpitis characterized by spontaneous pain (P) evaluated at various time intervals?' (T).

METHODS

Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The literature search was conducted in the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English language clinical trials comparing the patient and clinical reported outcomes between RCT and pulpotomy were included. The meta-analysis was performed on a fixed-effect model and the quality of evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Two randomized clinical trials were included. Amongst two trials, one has published four reports at different time points involving the same cohorts. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in postoperative pain (Day 7) between RCT and pulpotomy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.55, I2  = 0%) and quality of evidence was graded as 'High'. Clinical success was high at year 1, 98% for both interventions, however, decreased over time to 78.1% (pulpotomy) and 75.3% (RCT) at 5 years.

DISCUSSION

Pulpotomy is a definitive treatment modality that is as effective as RCT. This could have a significant impact on treatment of such patients affording the advantages of retaining a vital pulp and preventing the need for RCT.

CONCLUSION

This review could only include two trials, hence there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions. The clinical data accumulated so far suggests no difference in pain between RCT and pulpotomy at Day 7 postoperatively and a single randomized control trial suggests that the clinical success rate for both treatment modalities is similar long term. There is a need for more well-designed trials by different research groups to develop a stronger evidence base in this area.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42021259744).

Effect of Preoperative Oral Steroids in Comparison to Anti-inflammatory on Anesthetic Success of Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block in Mandibular Molars with Symptomatic Irreversible Pulpitis-A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

This randomized double-blinded trial aimed to compare the anesthetic success of inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANBs) with 2% lidocaine in mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP) after oral premedication of prednisolone, dexamethasone, and ketorolac with placebo.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-four patients diagnosed with SIP in mandibular molars randomly received prednisolone, dexamethasone, ketorolac, or placebo (n = 46 each) 60 minutes before the administration of an IANB. The access cavity preparation was initiated after successfully confirming lip numbness and two consecutive negative responses to electric pulp testing. The success of the anesthesia was clinically confirmed when pain was absent during the endodontic access or instrumentation. A one-way analysis of variance test was used to compare quantitative variables among the groups, and chi-square tests were used for comparing categorical variables. Binary logistic regression was performed to analyze the relationship of age, preoperative pain, and preoperative medications.

RESULTS

When premedicated with oral dexamethasone, ketorolac, prednisolone, and placebo, the success rate of IANB was determined to be 60.86 %, 65.21 %, 56.52 %, and 21.73 %, respectively. Compared to the placebo, the success rate of IANB was significantly increased when patients were premedicated with prednisolone, dexamethasone, or ketorolac. However, there were no statistically significant differences among prednisolone, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. One individual in the ketorolac group reported gastritis, whereas no adverse effects were reported in the dexamethasone or prednisolone groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative use of oral ketorolac, dexamethasone, or prednisolone may increase the anesthetic efficacy of IANB in mandibular molars with SIP.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols

BACKGROUND

With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/9kj7r/.

There is room for improvement in the use of scoping reviews in dentistry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of authors' justifications for choosing the scoping review methodology in oral health.

STUDY SELECTION, DATA AND SOURCE

This is a meta-research study about scoping reviews in dentistry. This study searched for reviews in PubMed and Scopus without year restrictions and restricted to English-language publications. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Each of these reviewers extracted data from half of the included studies considering general study characteristics and scoping reviews objectives, as well as data about whether or not the authors clearly explained why they chose the scoping review framework.

RESULTS

We included 184 articles. Ninety-seven of the reports did not provide a rationale as to why they chose the scoping review method (52.7%). Regarding the reported aims of the studies, 29.9% (n = 29/87) of the scoping reviews presented more than one. When comparing studies reporting the use of the PRISMA-ScR to those not reporting the PRISMA-ScR, there is no difference in the reporting of a clear explanation of why the authors used a scoping review method.

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement in how authors report their justifications for choosing the scoping review method.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scoping reviews may be used by researchers who are unaware of this method. Educational initiatives should thus be encouraged.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

AIM

The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.