Effectiveness of root canal treatment for vital pulps compared with necrotic pulps in the presence or absence of signs of periradicular pathosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: A consensus-based development

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors.

Oral health-related quality of life and perceptions of patients following primary root canal treatment or non-surgical retreatment

This retrospective cohort study compared the effect of primary root canal treatment (RCT) with root canal retreatment (Re-RCT) on patient-reported outcomes in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Forty randomly selected adults participated (RCT n = 20; Re-RCT n = 20). The impact their dentition had on the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) was assessed by calculating the prevalence of oral health impact, and the severity score. Focus group discussions using a semi-structured guide were arranged through an online meeting platform. Qualitative content analysis identified common themes, and relevant quotes gathered. The impact on OHIP-14 was limited for both RCT and Re-RCT groups with no significant differences in the prevalence of oral health impact. Significant differences were found for functional limitation (RCT higher) and psychological discomfort (Re-RCT higher). Common themes from the discussions include the importance of retaining teeth, the significance of effective communication between clinicians and patients and that the respondents were satisfied with the treatment.

Fifteen years of engine-driven nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments, what do we know so far? An umbrella review

Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) have produced conflicting findings on engine-driven nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments (reciprocating instruments) since Yared's seminal study 15 years ago. This umbrella review analysed SRs examining the clinical and laboratory evidence regarding reciprocating instruments for root canal treatment. SRs that evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively the outcomes postoperative pain, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), shaping ability, debris extrusion, microbial load, endotoxins reduction, cyclic fatigue, file fracture, dentinal cracks and root canal filling removal were included. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to evaluate SRs quality, while the ROBIS tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). Forty SRs were included. The SRs revealed predominantly 'high' RoB and 'critically low' quality. Most focused on technical outcomes, exhibiting significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity. Findings suggest comparable efficacy between reciprocating and rotary instruments. However, due to the scarcity of high-quality evidence, future well-designed studies and reviews considering core outcome measures are needed.

Factors associated with the outcome of root canal treatment-A cohort study conducted in a private practice

AIM

To investigate the association of various pre-, intra- and post-operative factors on root canal treatment outcome.

METHODOLOGY

In this cohort study, primary or secondary root canal treatment of mature permanent teeth was performed by a single endodontist in a private practice over 13 years, and followed 1-4 years after treatment. Treatment details and clinical and radiographic data were collected. The proportion of successfully treated teeth and roots based on strict radiographic (periapical index (PAI) ≤2) and clinical criteria (absence of pain, swelling or sinus tract) was estimated. To evaluate joint associations of prognostic factors and treatment success probability, 44 pre, intra- and post-operative factors were investigated using bivariate associations, and a multiple logistic regression model was fitted using Generalized Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

1259 teeth (2445 roots, 3149 canals) were assessed with a recall rate of 91%. The proportion of successfully treated teeth was 79.9% [95% confidence interval 77.7-82.1]. Eleven prognostic factors were identified that significantly reduced the odds ratio (OR) for treatment success at tooth level. Six were preoperative: injury history (OR = 0.05[0.01-0.24]), root PAI (OR = 0.29[0.20-0.42], 0.21[0.13-0.34] and 0.22[0.12-0.42] for PAI = 3, 4 and 5, respectively, against PAI = 1), lesion diameter (OR = 0.30[0.21-0.43] and 0.24[0.16-0.37] for diameters of 1-5 mm and ≥6 mm, respectively, against no lesion), tooth type (OR = 0.51[0.27-0.97] and OR = 0.45[0.24-0.83] for premolars and molars, respectively, against incisors or canines), tenderness to periapical palpation (OR = 0.64[0.43-0.94]) and two canals per root (OR = 0.67[0.54-0.83]). Four factors were intraoperative: root filling of unsatisfactory quality (OR = 0.18[0.08-0.40]) or extending beyond or shorter than 2 mm from the apex (OR = 0.44[0.26-0.75] and 0.62[0.40-0.97] respectively), resin sealer (OR = 0.58[0.39-0.87] against bioceramic sealer) and single visit treatment (OR = 0.40[0.21-0.75] against multiple visits). One factor was post-operative: defective coronal restoration (OR = 0.35[0.21-0.56]).

CONCLUSION

The following factors were associated with unsuccessful root canal treatment: (i) history of injury, apical periodontitis with increased severity (larger lesion, higher PAI, tenderness to periapical palpation), or complicated anatomic conditions (premolar or molar, two canals in a single root); (ii) technically suboptimal root filling (of unsatisfactory quality or not ending within 2 mm of radiographic apex) performed in a single-visit, or use of resin sealer instead of novel bioceramic sealer; (iii) suboptimal quality coronal restoration.

Treatment of pulpal and apical disease: The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3-level clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

The ESE previously published quality guidelines for endodontic treatment in 2006; however, there have been significant changes since not only in clinical endodontics but also in consensus and guideline development processes. In the development of the inaugural S3-level clinical practice guidelines (CPG), a comprehensive systematic and methodologically robust guideline consultation process was followed in order to produce evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients presenting with pulpal and apical disease.

AIM

To develop an S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease, focusing on diagnosis and the implementation of the treatment approaches required to manage patients presenting with pulpitis and apical periodontitis (AP) with the ultimate goal of preventing tooth loss.

METHODS

This S3-level CPG was developed by the ESE, with the assistance of independent methodological guidance provided by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and utilizing the GRADE process. A robust, rigorous and transparent process included the analysis of relevant comparative research in 14 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, prior to evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific evidence and expert-based recommendations in a structured consensus process with leading endodontic experts and a broad base of external stakeholders.

RESULTS

The S3-level CPG for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease describes in a series of clinical recommendations the effectiveness of diagnosing pulpitis and AP, prior to investigating the effectiveness of endodontic treatments in managing those diseases. Therapeutic strategies include the effectiveness of deep caries management in cases with, and without, spontaneous pain and pulp exposure, vital versus nonvital teeth, the effectiveness of root canal instrumentation, irrigation, dressing, root canal filling materials and adjunct intracanal procedures in the management of AP. Prior to treatment planning, the critical importance of history and case evaluation, aseptic techniques, appropriate training and re-evaluations during and after treatment is stressed.

CONCLUSION

The first S3-level CPG in endodontics informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers, other stakeholders and patients on the available and most effective treatments to manage patients with pulpitis and AP in order to preserve teeth over a patient's lifetime, according to the best comparative evidence currently available.

Clinical outcomes of teeth adjacent to the site of mandibulotomy or mandibulectomy in patients with head and neck cancer: results from a multidisciplinary mono-institutional head and neck tumor board

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this case series was to evaluate the necrosis of teeth adjacent to the site of mandibulotomy or mandibulectomy in a cohort of patients suffering from head and neck cancers.

METHODS

Fourteen patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy or paramedian mandibulotomy for oral, oropharynx or major salivary gland cancer and a total of 23 teeth were included in this case series. Twelve patients underwent adjuvant head and neck radiotherapy. Cold sensitivity pulp testing and/or electric pulp testing were performed on teeth at the margin of mandibulectomy and on teeth adjacent to mandibulotomy after surgery. A "positive" response was considered the healthy state, and "negative" was considered the diseased state of the tooth.

RESULTS

The 10 patients who underwent mandibulotomy had 12 teeth with a negative response. The 4 patients treated by mandibulectomy had two positive and three negative responses to cold and electric pulp tests. Fifteen out of 23 teeth (65.2%) showed a negative response to sensitivity testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth necrosis seems to be a common event after mandibulectomy and mandibulotomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To avoid post-surgery complications, performing root canal therapy before surgery on the teeth adjacent to the surgical site could be an appropriate strategy.

Factors that affect the outcomes of root canal treatment and retreatment-A reframing of the principles

This paper undertakes a broad and comprehensive synthesis of relevant clinical, biological, biomechanical, technical and healthcare services data to understand the factors affecting outcomes of periapical healing after root canal (re)treatment. The medical and dental evidence-based era (1980-present) is contextualized with the earlier evidence drive in endodontics (1911-1940) triggered by the focal infection era. The current evidence-based approach has a sharper focus on evidence quality and derivation of practice guidelines. Contrary views question whether guideline-driven, or expertise-development-driven endeavours would best serve outcome improvement in society. The endodontic discipline functions in a broad healthcare framework and sustains industrial, economic and trend pressures that may be deemed to influence outcomes. The nature of root canal treatment and the challenges in determining the factors that affect its outcomes is discussed. The factors potentially affecting periapical healing after root canal treatment are classified into pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative groups. These categories subsume multiple elements with interactive influences, creating a complex picture, further confounded by some apparently surprising, counter-intuitive and contradictory findings. The technical versus biological conundrum in root canal treatment continues to cause cognitive dissonance. However, due reflection and cross-discipline-synthesis resolve the apparent data conflicts into a very simple, consistent and plausible picture of how root canal treatment works and the key factors that affect periapical healing. Root canal retreatment is considered mainly in the context of its differences from primary treatment as the majority of factors influencing outcomes are common to both. The exceptional difference is that retreatments have a proportionately reduced probability of healing by virtue of compromised apical root canal ramification access or modified host/infection interactions. Root canal (re)treatment outcomes are dominantly influenced by the nature of prior dynamic host/infection interaction (pre-operative patient factors) and how the direction of this dynamic is influenced by two factors: (1) the active efficacy of the operators' root canal treatment protocol to sustain a microbial ecological shift (intra-operative treatment factors) and dampen periapical inflammation; and (2) the passive ability of the functional tooth (and its restoration margin) to maintain its integrity to resist infection reversal (postoperative restorative factors).