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

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.

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.

Impact XP-endo finisher on the 1-year follow-up success of posterior root canal treatments: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical relevance of using the XP-endo Finisher as a supplementary tool to improve the success of root canal treatment of posterior teeth with apical periodontitis, as assessed by 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 92 posterior teeth with apical periodontitis. Root canal treatment was performed using a single reciprocating file, with or without the supplementary use of the XP-endo Finisher. The status of apical periodontitis was assessed using the periapical index (PAI) at baseline and 1 year follow-up. Changes on PAI indicated that the lesions were healed, healing, or not healed. Successful treatments were defined as healed or healing lesions without clinical symptoms. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used for data analysis (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the distribution of healing status between the XP-endo Finisher group and the control group (p = 0.690). The success rates were also similar, with 81% in the XP-endo Finisher group and 78% in the control group. However, gender had a significant impact on success rates, with higher rates observed in females.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the XP-endo Finisher file as a supplementary tool did not affect the success rate of root canal treatment in posterior teeth with apical periodontitis. The findings indicate that the XP-endo Finisher file has limited clinical relevance in improving treatment outcomes for root canal treatment in posterior teeth with apical periodontitis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry under identification number RBR-76w7cj (June 19, 2018).

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.