Outcomes reporting in systematic reviews on revitalization: A scoping review for the development of a core outcome set

Correlation between pulp sensibility and magnetic resonance signal intensity following regenerative endodontic procedures in mature necrotic teeth- a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

With increasing studies being published on regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) as a treatment modality for mature necrotic teeth, the assessment of outcomes following regenerative endodontic procedures has become more challenging and the demand for a better understanding of the regenerated tissues following this treatment is rising. The study aimed to correlate cold, electric pulp testing (EPT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signal intensity (SI) in mature necrotic teeth treated with regenerative endodontic procedures.

METHODOLOGY

This retrospective cohort study included eighteen adult patients who experienced tooth necrosis in mature maxillary anterior teeth recruited from the outpatient clinic, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt from July 2017 until December 2018 with 12 months of follow-up. regenerative endodontic procedures via blood clot were performed. The canals were instrumented by ProTaper Next (PTN) files until final sizes X3 or X5. Biodentine was used as cervical plug material. Pre and post-operative clinical follow-up was done where the patients' responses to cold and electric pulp testing were given a scoring system and were compared to the normal contralateral tooth. Pre and post-operative magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity of both the involved tooth and its contralateral at the middle and the apical thirds of the root canals were assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Data was analyzed using the ANOVA, Friedman and Bonferroni tests. Significance was set at a p-value < 0.05.

RESULTS

All 18 teeth scored a baseline score of "2" for cold and electric pulp testing. There was a significant difference between scores of the cold test at baseline and 12-month follow-up (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between scores of the electric pulp testing of baseline and 12-month follow-up (p < 0.001). There was a moderately significant indirect (inverse) correlation between magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity and cold test in both the middle and apical thirds at 12 months. No significant correlations were detected between magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity and electric pulp testingat any of the time intervals (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Magnetic resonance imaging is a successful non-invasive method to assess outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures and correlating it with another reliable method of assessing pulpal responses, cold test, could validate these outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03804450).

An international consensus study to identify "what" outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for endodontic treatments (COSET) for utilization in clinical practice and research

BACKGROUND

Development of a standardized set of topic-specific outcomes known as a Core Outcome Set (COS) is important to address issues of heterogeneity in reporting research findings in order to streamline evidence synthesis and clinical decision making.

AIM

The aim of the current international consensus study is to identify "what" outcomes to include in the Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatments (COSET). Outcomes of various endodontic treatments (non-surgical root canal treatment, surgical endodontics, vital pulp treatment and revitalization procedures) performed on permanent teeth were considered.

METHODS

A standard validated methodology for COS development and reporting was adopted. The process involved identification of existing outcomes through four published scoping reviews. This enabled creation of a list of outcomes to be prioritized via semi-structured patient interviews, e-Delphi process and a consensus meeting with a range of relevant global stakeholders. Outcomes were prioritized using a 1-9 Likert scale, with outcomes rated 7-9 considered critical, 4-6 are important and 1-3 are less important. Outcomes rated 7-9 by ≥70% and 1-3 by <15% of participants were considered to achieve consensus for inclusion in the COS. The outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the first round were considered for further prioritization in the second Delphi round and consensus meeting. Final decisions about the outcomes to include in COSET were made by voting during the consensus panel meeting using the Zoom Poll function.

RESULTS

A total of 95 participants including patients contributed to the COS development process. The consensus panel recommended, with strong consensus, eight outcomes shared across all treatment modalities for inclusion in COSET: pain; signs of infection (swelling, sinus tract); further intervention/exacerbation; tenderness to percussion/palpation; radiographic evidence of disease progression/healing; function; tooth survival; and patient satisfaction. Additional treatment specific outcomes were also recommended.

DISCUSSION

Many of the outcomes included in COSET are patient reported. All should be included in future outcomes studies.

CONCLUSION

COSET identified outcomes that are important for patients and clinicians and validated these using a rigorous methodology. Further work is ongoing to determine "how" and "when" these outcomes should be measured.

A critical look at outcome measures: Comparison between four dental research journals by use of a hierarchical model

AIM

To assess the status quo of outcome measures used in treatment studies in Endodontics, and potentially identify strategies for improvement, by (i) systematically assessing the outcome measures using a conceptual model and (ii) comparing these with measures used in corresponding studies in the adjacent fields.

METHODOLOGY

The International Endodontic Journal, Caries Research, The Journal of Clinical Periodontology and The Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache were selected to cover four adjacent dental disciplines. In each journal, the 50 most recent consecutive publications fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. A hierarchical model for diagnostic imaging studies was modified to assess studies related to treatment. The model comprised six levels, with technical as the lowest level and societal as the highest. Extracted data included study origin, study type, and identified outcome measures. Fisher's Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections compared studies. p < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Amongst 756 publications, the 200 most recent studies matching the inclusion criteria were identified. Less than half (36.5%) assessed the clinical, patient, or societal aspects of treatment; 10.0% in International Endodontic Journal, 28.0% in Caries Research, 38.0% in Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and 70.0% in Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to included publications, research on treatment within the endodontic field is mainly focusing on technical and biological outcomes. The benefits of patients and society were less frequently examined than in corresponding journals in adjacent disciplines. When designing studies, including higher-level outcomes should be considered.