A critical analysis of clinical research methods to study regenerative endodontics

An innovative cell-based transplantation therapy for an immature permanent tooth in an adult: a case report

BACKGROUND

Immature teeth with necrotic pulps present multiple challenges to clinicians. In such cases, regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) may be a favorable strategy. Cells, biomaterial scaffolds, and signaling molecules are three key elements of REPs. Autologous human dental pulp cells (hDPCs) play an important role in pulp regeneration. In addition, autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have recently been demonstrated as effective biomaterial scaffolds in regenerative dentistry, whereas the latest generation of APCs-concentrated growth factor (CGF), especially liquid phase CGF (LPCGF)-has rarely been reported in REPs.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 31-year-old woman presented to our clinic with the chief complaint of occlusion discomfort in the left mandibular posterior region for the past 5 years. Tooth #35 showed no pulp vitality and had a periodontal lesion, and radiographic examination revealed that the tooth exhibited extensive periapical radiolucency with an immature apex and thin dentin walls. REP was implemented via transplantation of autologous hDPCs with the aid of LPCGF. The periodontal lesion was managed with simultaneous periodontal surgery. After the treatment, the tooth was free of any clinical symptoms and showed positive results in thermal and electric pulp tests at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. At 12-month follow-up, radiographic evidence and three-dimensional models, which were reconstructed using Mimics software based on cone-beam computed tomography, synergistically confirmed bone augmentation and continued root development, indicating complete disappearance of the periapical radiolucency, slight lengthening of the root, evident thickening of the canal walls, and closure of the apex.

CONCLUSION

hDPCs combined with LPCGF represents an innovative and effective strategy for cell-based regenerative endodontics.

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.

Treatment outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures in nonvital mature permanent teeth: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was undertaken to clinically and radiographically evaluate the long-term outcomes of regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) for nonvital mature permanent teeth, to analyze predictors influencing treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Nonvital mature permanent teeth treated by REPs with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included from 2015 to 2017. Treatment outcomes were categorized as success and failure. The periapical status and lesion healing were assessed in terms of the periapical index (PAI) and the percentage changes in periapical radiolucency (PARL) area. The clinical and radiographic outcomes of REPs were assessed by Mann-Whitney test at different follow-up period. Kaplan-Meier curves and Univariate Cox regression analysis were conducted to assess the success and identify potential predictors affecting outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 37 mature teeth with an average follow-up of 4.3 years satisfied the criteria, and 89.2% of the teeth had a successful outcome. Significant differences in PAI scores were found between each period with respect to the baseline (p < .05). Among different periods, there was a significant difference between intervals of 3-6 months and 7-12 months (p = .039) and no significant difference between each interval of more than 12 months (p > .05). Eighty-seven percent of teeth with preoperative PARL presented completely healed. REPs significantly decreased the PARL area at the interval of 7-12 months compared to 3-6 months (p = .025), with no significant difference between each interval of more than 12 months (p > .05). No significant predictor was found for the success of outcome (p > .05). Thirteen teeth (35.1%) regained pulp sensibility, and 40.5% of the teeth exhibited intracanal calcification.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, REPs provided a high long-term success rate and promoted the resolution of PARL as a biologically-based alternative treatment option for nonvital mature teeth.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

REPs provide a high long-term success rate and promoted healing of apical periodontitis comparable with reported outcomes for root canal therapy of mature teeth.

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

BACKGROUND

Revitalization is a type of regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) that offers the exciting prospect of revitalizing damaged tissue, therefore improving outcomes for non-vital immature teeth. To evaluate its potential, there needs to be consistency in outcome reporting of clinical studies investigating revitalization to allow for evidence synthesis and inform clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review was to identify outcomes that are reported in systematic reviews on revitalization including how and when these outcomes are measured. Additionally, evidence of selective reporting bias in the reviews was assessed.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search of healthcare databases and grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews published in the English language reporting outcomes of revitalization in permanent immature teeth. There was no restriction on the date of publication. Outcome data was extracted by four reviewers independently and mapped with a healthcare taxonomy into five core areas: survival, clinical/physiological changes, life impact, resource use and adverse events. Selective reporting bias and how it was measured was assessed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-six systematic reviews were included in this scoping review. There was lack of standardization in reporting and significant heterogeneity across reviews in outcome endpoints. The outcomes reported could be aligned within the five core areas of the taxonomy including tooth survival which was reported in nine reviews. Patient-reported outcomes were generally limited and no review reported on Oral Health Related Quality of Life. Many of the reviews reporting on randomized control trials were at low risk of selective reporting bias whilst other study designs were at higher risk.

DISCUSSION

Consistency in outcome reporting is necessary to realize the benefits of old but particularly novel therapies. Data from this review confirmed heterogeneity in reporting outcomes of revitalization and the need for development of a core outcome set (COS).

CONCLUSIONS

Several important outcomes including survival, root development, tooth discolouration and periapical healing have been identified in this review which could inform the development of a COS in this area.

REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database (registration no. 1879).