Strength of recommendation for single-visit root canal treatment: grading the body of the evidence using a patient-centred approach

Epoxy vs. Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers for Different Clinical Scenarios: A Narrative Review

This study aimed to review the considerations for choosing a suitable sealer according to various endodontic scenarios. An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science was undertaken for the keywords of 'sealer choosing', 'appropriate sealer', 'suitable sealer', 'sealer for clinical scenario', and 'sealer for clinical situations'. However, the literature review revealed a lack of studies with practical clinical recommendations regarding the choice of appropriate endodontic root canal sealers for particular clinical situations of root canal treatment. Therefore, a narrative review was undertaken under the basis of the characteristics of an epoxy resin-based sealer (ERS) versus a calcium silicate-based sealer (CSS). Based on the evidence found through the review, the choice of an appropriate sealer in a variety of clinical scenarios was proposed. An ERS is recommended for one-visit non-vital cases, teeth with periodontal involvement, cracked teeth, and internal root resorption without root perforation. A CSS is recommended for vital or non-vital cases in multiple visits, teeth with internal root resorption with perforation or internal approach for external cervical resorption, teeth with open apices, and teeth with iatrogenic aberrations.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ENDODONTICS - A NARRATIVE REVIEW

Recently in oral health care settings, the focus of assessing treatment outcomes has shifted from the perspective of the clinician towards that of the patient. Endodontology is a specialty of dentistry concerned with the prevention and treatment of pulp and periapical diseases. Research in endodontology and its associated treatment outcomes have focused mainly on clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and not dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). As a result, there is a need to emphasize the importance and relevance of dPROs to researchers and clinicians. The aim of this review is to present an overview of dPROs and dPROMs within endodontics in an attempt to create a better understanding of the patient experience, highlight the need to place the patient at the center of treatment, enhance patient care and encourage more research into dPROs. The key dPROs following endodontic treatment include pain, tenderness, tooth function, need for further intervention, adverse effects (exacerbation of symptoms, tooth discoloration) and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. dPROs are important following endodontic treatment because they assist clinicians and patients when they discuss and select the most appropriate management options, help clinicians make decisions on pre-operative assessment, prevention and treatment, and improve the methodology and design of future clinical studies. Clinicians and researchers in endodontology should prioritize patient welfare and undertake routine analyses of dPROs using appropriate and robust measures. Due to the lack of agreement over the reporting and definition of endodontic treatment outcomes, a comprehensive project to define a ``Core Outcome Set for Endodontic Treatment Methods (COSET)'' is currently ongoing. In the future, a new and exclusive assessment tool should be developed to reflect the viewpoints of patients receiving endodontic treatment more accurately.

Influence of acidic pH on antimicrobial activity of different calcium silicate based-endodontic sealers

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the antibacterial activity of calcium silicate-based sealers (CSBSs) against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in a neutral or acidic condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dentin cylinders (4 mm length) were prepared and infected with 3-week-old E. faecalis. The samples were filled with BioRoot RCS (BR), EndoSequence BC (ES), and NeoMTA Plus (NMTA) and incubated in either neutral or acidic conditions for 7 days (n=10/group). Sterile or infected samples alone were used as the positive and negative control. The root canal sealers were removed after 7 days, and the remaining bacteria on dentinal walls were determined by colony-forming units (CFUs/ml), and three samples from each group were visualized under a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). The pH was also measured (n=3/group) after 4 h and 7 days of incubation at 37°C in both conditions.

RESULTS

In the neutral condition, all sealers significantly decreased the log-CFU values (p<0.05), while in the acidic condition, the log-CFU reduction was less for ES and NMTA, but a higher reduction was observed in BR (p<0.05). The antibacterial activity of CSBSs was similar in neutral conditions (p>0.05), and BR showed a greater antibacterial effect than ES and NMTA in the acidic condition (p<0.05). The pH of BR, ES, and NMTA ranged from 8.2 to 8.8 in the neutral condition in the presence of dentin after 7 days. However, acidic conditions reduced the pH values to 7.8 for BR, 6.0 for ES, and 5.8 for NMTA.

CONCLUSIONS

All CSBSs showed similar antibacterial activity in neutral conditions, while acidic pH had a reducing antibacterial effect on CSBSs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Inflammatory pH decreased the antibacterial properties of CSBSs depending on the sealer type.

Dental treatment under general anesthesia for patients with severe disabilities

Patients with disabilities have difficulties tolerating in-office dental treatment due to limitations relating to cooperation and/or physical problems. Therefore, they often require general anesthesia or sedation to facilitate safe treatment. When deciding on dental treatment under general anesthesia, the plan should be carefully determined because compared to general patients, patients with disabilities are more likely to experience anesthetic complications because of their underlying medical conditions and potential drug interactions. Clinicians prefer simpler and more aggressive dental treatment procedures, such as extraction, since patients with impairment have difficulty maintaining oral hygiene, resulting in a high incidence of recurrent caries or restorative failures. This study aimed to review the available literature and discuss what dentists and anesthesiologists should consider when providing dental treatment to patients with severe disability under general anesthesia.

Biofilms in Endodontics-Current Status and Future Directions

Microbiota are found in highly organized and complex entities, known as biofilms, the characteristics of which are fundamentally different from microbes in planktonic suspensions. Root canal infections are biofilm mediated. The complexity and variability of the root canal system, together with the multi-species nature of biofilms, make disinfection of this system extremely challenging. Microbial persistence appears to be the most important factor for failure of root canal treatment and this could further have an impact on pain and quality of life. Biofilm removal is accomplished by a chemo-mechanical process, using specific instruments and disinfecting chemicals in the form of irrigants and/or intracanal medicaments. Endodontic research has focused on the characterization of root canal biofilms and the clinical methods to disrupt the biofilms in addition to achieving microbial killing. In this narrative review, we discuss the role of microbial biofilms in endodontics and review the literature on the role of root canal disinfectants and disinfectant-activating methods on biofilm removal.

Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment using meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.

DATA

Controlled trials comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal treatment of permanent teeth were included. Trials needed to assess the risk of long-term complications (pain, infection, new/persisting/increasing periapical lesions ≥1 year after treatment), short-term pain or flare-up (acute exacerbation of initiation or continuation of root canal treatment).

SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) were screened, random-effects meta-analyses performed and trial-sequential analysis used to control for risk of random errors. Evidence was graded according to GRADE.

STUDY SELECTION

29 trials (4341 patients) were included, all but 6 showing high risk of bias. Based on 10 trials (1257 teeth), risk of complications was not significantly different in single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.35); weak evidence). Based on 20 studies (3008 teeth), risk of pain did not significantly differ between treatments (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.30); moderate evidence). Risk of flare-up was recorded by 8 studies (1110 teeth) and was significantly higher after single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.89); very weak evidence). Trial-sequential analysis revealed that firm evidence for benefit, harm or futility was not reached for any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to rule out whether important differences between both strategies exist.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dentists can provide root canal treatment in 1 or multiple visits. Given the possibly increased risk of flare-ups, multiple-visit treatment might be preferred for certain teeth (eg, those with periapical lesions).

Use of the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) to assess full-mouth treatments of chronic periodontitis

Previous studies have not resolved whether scaling and root planing with a full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) or quadrant approach is better for treatment of chronic periodontitis. We identified relevant studies and used Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria to critically interpret the results of all relevant studies. A literature search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to July 2015. Selected studies were stratified according to their quality, quantity, and consistency. In total, 377 studies were identified, and 36 articles selected for retrieval were stratified according SORT criteria, as follows: no level 1 studies, 15 level 2 studies, and 21 level 3 studies (which were excluded from subsequent analysis). Among the selected level 2 studies, including seven randomized clinical trials and three systematic reviews, 67% showed no significant difference between scaling and root planing with a full-mouth or quadrant approach. In conclusion, on the basis of the best available data, the strength of evidence is grade B (consistent, low-quality evidence) for full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) and quadrant scaling and root planing for treatment of chronic periodontitis.