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

The impact of bone grafting with/without barrier membrane placement on the outcome of apical surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regenerative techniques are increasingly being advocated in endodontic apical surgery (AS) to enhance the healing of periapical lesions. Various grafting and membrane materials are employed as adjuncts to modern AS.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: In patients with apical periodontitis (P) what is the impact of bone grafting with/without barrier membrane materials (I) compared with surgery without grafting materials (C) on the outcome of AS evaluated clinically and radiographically (O).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Embase, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) until 1 August 2023. Google Scholar was also manually searched. Studies with a prospective randomized design were included. Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool 2.0 assessed bias. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and appraisal of studies. Meta-analysis was performed using R3.5.1 software.

RESULTS

From the identified 2582 studies, eight randomized clinical trials were included for meta-analysis. Two studies had low RoB, while six had some concerns. Analysis revealed significantly better outcomes when surgery involved bone regeneration techniques than conventional surgery (OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.32-4.31, p = .004). Subgroup analyses on individual grafts (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: -0.99 to 1.44, p = .720) (OR = -0.09, 95% CI: -1.42 to 1.23, p = .885) and membranes (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) and their combinations (OR = 0.03, 95% CI: -1.50 to 1.55, p = .970) did not yield any significant results. The type of membrane used did not significantly impact the outcome (OR = -1.09, 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.76, p = .247) nor did altering the combination of graft/membrane.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review examined the effects of bone grafting with/without membrane placement on the outcome of AS. It highlights the potential advantages of regenerative techniques and the need for further research in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, bone grafting with/without barrier membrane placement significantly improves healing after AS. Subgroup analysis of resorbable membranes or grafting did not significantly influence the outcome. The combination of membrane and graft was also not significant. Future well-designed, randomized controlled trials in this area are essential before these materials can be recommended for routine use to enhance healing outcomes in AS.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021255171).

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.

Process-related Factors Are as Important as Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Root Canal Retreatment, and Endodontic Microsurgery

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable variation in the reporting of treatment outcomes in endodontics. Patient-centered outcomes are often inadequately reported in endodontic outcome studies. This paper explores patients' expectations and reported outcomes in nonsurgical root canal treatment (NS-RCT), nonsurgical root canal retreatment (NS-ReTx), and endodontic microsurgery (EMS).

METHODS

We used a qualitative description approach and conducted telephone and virtual semi-structured interviews with participants who had the following treatments within the preceding 3-12 months: NS-RCT (n = 10), NS-ReTx (n = 10), or EMS (n = 10). Half of these treatments were performed by senior endodontic residents in an academic setting and the other half by a community-based endodontist at a private practice.

RESULTS

Participants identified several outcomes that were important to them and integral to treatment success, such as tooth survival, resolution of symptoms, aesthetics, and radiographic healing. Process-related factors were as important as treatment outcomes for participants. Communicating with and educating patients during treatment increased participants' satisfaction and lowered their stress. Dissatisfaction was linked to the lack of a comprehensive treatment and follow-up plan. Thorough planning ensured that patients were fully informed and had a structured approach to achieving their desired outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a list of outcomes that are important for patients undergoing NS-RCT, NS-ReTx, and EMS. These outcomes should be considered when developing a core outcome set related to endodontic treatments. Additionally, this study reports patients' expectations regarding process-related factors that are essential for providing patient-centered care and improving patient experience.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Randomised Controlled Trials of Nursing Education: A Methodological Framework

Background. Nursing educational research is very important for the development of the nursing discipline. There have been many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of nursing education, and the outcomes are highly heterogeneous and waste resources. The study aims to report the methodological framework to establish a core outcome set (COS) for RCTs of nursing education. Methods. The study will be conducted in the following five steps: (a) establish nursing education COS working groups; (b) develop an initial list of outcomes of nursing education by systematic review and semistructured interview; (c) Delphi survey with different stakeholders to reach a preliminary consensus on the core outcome of nursing education; (d) expert consultation to form the outcome pool; (e) expert consensus meeting to form the nursing education COS. Results. The goal is to develop a COS that includes stakeholders’ interest in nursing education to determine which outcomes should be reported and how they should be measured. Conclusions. By performing the study, the nursing education COS will be established, which will help to reduce reporting bias and resource waste, and provide enough results for nursing education systematic reviews.

The importance of establishing a core outcome set for endodontic clinical trials and outcomes studies

Endodontic therapy aims to preserve teeth by preventing and treating apical disease, therefore, evaluation of treatment outcome in clinical trials and outcomes studies should effectively assess if it achieves these aims. Traditionally, treatment outcomes have been reported by clinicians after history and clinical examination in what is known as clinician-reported outcomes (CROs). Much less commonly employed however, are patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in which patients directly report on their condition. Endodontic treatment outcome reporting is evolving from a focus on CROs to increasing consideration for patient and disease-focused outcomes, with different criteria being proposed for assessment of treatment outcomes. Unfortunately, this has led to considerable variability and a lack of consensus on the definition, appropriate measurement and reporting of these outcomes. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting in clinical research provides a significant major barrier to conduct meta-analysis, guidelines development, clinical decision making, and ultimately affecting patient care. These effects could, however, be reduced by the establishment of a core outcome set (COS) in endodontics, which is defined as an agreed, standardized set of outcomes that should be included, measured and reported as a minimum in all trials and outcome studies. COS development is a regulated and validated process requiring involvement of appropriate stakeholders as well as a rigorous methodology. To date, COS has been developed for the management of traumatic dental injuries, orthodontic and periodontal treatment and is currently being developed for endodontic treatment. The aim of this review is to discuss the importance of COS in endodontics with focus on the evidence for and impact of heterogeneity in reporting endodontic treatment outcomes. An overview of an ongoing process for development of COS for different endodontic treatment modalities will also be provided.

What does epidemiology tell us about treatment outcomes in endodontics

BACKGROUND

Available information on endodontic treatment outcome derives from clinical studies, of which the main part is observational with no randomization and little or no control of confounding factors. Several sources of bias may hamper the interpretation of results from observational studies if the problems are not addressed properly.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review is to describe and explain the potential benefits of employing epidemiological methodology when designing, conducting and reporting on observational, clinical outcome studies.

DISCUSSION

Epidemiology provides methodology that can be used to reduce the impact of several types of problems related to observational studies. These problems concern, external validity, which describes the generalisability of the study findings, and internal validity, which describe data quality parameters, such as selection bias, information bias and confounding. Furthermore reporting of a study should be systematized, and to that use, several checklists have been developed.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that epidemiological methods are important for conducting and interpretation of findings from clinical, observational studies in endodontology.

Factors that influence the outcomes of surgical endodontic treatment

Surgical endodontic treatment encompasses a broad spectrum of procedures, amongst which root-end cavity preparation and filling, retrograde root canal treatment and through-and-through endodontic surgery, may be classified under the umbrella term 'Root-end surgery'. This narrative review considers the available data on periapical healing, soft tissue healing, tooth survival and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), following root-end surgery and the factors that affect its outcomes. The pooled periapical healed rate for the studies published up to 2021 was 69% (95% CI: 65%, 73%) but increased to 76% (95% CI: 66%, 86%) when only data from the 2020's studies were analysed. The prognostic factors consistently reported for periapical healing have included: pre-operative periapical lesion with complete loss of buccal plate, quality of root-end preparation, remaining thickness of apical root dentine and restorative status. Soft tissue healing of the reflected flap was found to have a positive association with periapical healing. The survival rates following root-end surgery range from 48% to 93%, with failure of periapical healing associated with root and crown fracture, being the predominant reasons for tooth extraction. The factors influencing impact of root-end surgery on patients' quality of life could not be adequately evaluated due to design flaws in the available studies. In conclusion, if root canal treatment failure due to leakage through cracks, fractures or restoration margin are excluded, the remaining cases may represent localized residual infection and inflammation at the periapex that should be amenable to predictable management with the aid of modern root-end surgery.

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).