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.

Unraveling the Enigma of Managing a Large Periapical Lesion: A Case Report

This case report documents the diagnosis and successful management of a substantial periapical lesion located in the lower left region of the jaw. The patient presented with clinical symptoms indicative of periapical pathology, and radiographic examination revealed an extensive radiolucent lesion. The chosen treatment approach involved endodontic intervention coupled with surgical decompression, leading to the resolution of the lesion and restoration of oral health. This case underscores the significance of an accurate diagnosis and a multidisciplinary treatment approach in addressing large periapical lesions.

Effectiveness of root resection techniques compared with root canal retreatment or apical surgery for the treatment of apical periodontitis and tooth survival: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

To manage apical periodontitis in root filled maxillary and mandibular molars, root resection techniques may be employed to avoid the loss of the tooth.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to systematically analyse the effectiveness of root resection techniques (root resection/crown resection/root amputation) for the management of apical periodontitis with non-surgical root canal retreatment or apical surgery by the evaluation of clinical and patient-related outcomes (PROMS), in human experimental studies and longitudinal studies.

METHODS

An electronic literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE via OVID interface, EMBASE and Cochrane Central, supplemented by a manual hand search of the grey literature, was performed up to 25th September 2021. Randomized controlled trials, comparative clinical trials and observational studies reporting on the outcome (tooth survival and patient-reported outcome measures with a minimum follow-up of 1 year) of root resection techniques for treating apical periodontitis were identified. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

From a total of 2098 reports, 36 were considered for further screening. Three retrospective studies, published between 2018 and 2020, were included in this systematic review. A high heterogeneity in terms of protocols, study design and the reported outcomes were observed. The risk of bias was scored as low to moderate. These three studies consisted of data from 305 resected teeth, from 254 patients, with a follow-up period of 1-16.8 years. Overall, 151 teeth were extracted during the follow-up period. In these studies, root resection treatment was carried out on 42 teeth exclusively for endodontic reasons. One of these studies reported 12 out of 23 teeth lost at follow-up. None of the studies reported on PROMS.

DISCUSSION

Although root resection techniques may be used for treating teeth with apical periodontitis, the data are limited. Furthermore, the studies are very heterogeneous and associated with high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the current level of available evidence, it is not possible to recommend, or dismiss, root resection techniques for managing apical periodontitis.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42021260306).

Endodontic Microsurgery on a Persistent Periapical Lesion

Extrusion of root filling material had been shown to reduce the success of endodontic treatment. This case report describes the management of a patient who reported prolonged, persistent, and increasing pain on an upper root filled central incisor with extruded root filling material. A 28-year-old female patient came with the chief complaint of pain and tenderness on the upper left central incisor. The pain was mostly triggered by mastication. Upon examination and investigation, the tooth of concern was tooth 21 which was a root treated many years ago. It appeared to have tenderness on percussion and palpation. Non-surgical root canal retreatment was completed on tooth 21. However, the patient complained of the same pain while biting even after six months post-obturation. Therefore, endodontic microsurgery was performed to remove the root filling material that was extruded and to enucleate the granulomatous lesion around the periapical region of tooth 21. After enucleation, apical root end resection was performed. Postoperatively, the patient reported comfort and no pain and was able to resume her daily activities. At six months of review, the radiograph showed evidence of complete healing. This case report captured the importance of endodontic microsurgery as a viable treatment option where nonsurgical root canal retreatment failed to relieve the patient's symptoms.

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

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare relies on the translation of research results to everyday clinical practice. A fundamental requirement is that the validity of any healthcare intervention must be supported by the resultant favourable treatment outcome. Unfortunately, differences in study design and the outcome measures evaluated often make it challenging to synthesise the available research evidence required for secondary research analysis and guideline development. Core outcome sets (COS) are defined as an agreed standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported as a minimum in all clinical trials on a specific topic. The benefits of COS include less heterogeneity, a reduction in the risk of reporting bias, ensuring all trials contribute data to facilitate meta-analyses, and given the engagement of key stakeholders, it also increases the chances that clinically-relevant outcomes are identified. The recognition of the need for COS for assessing endodontic treatment outcomes lead to the development of Core Outcome Sets for Endodontic Treatment modalities (COSET) protocol, which is registered (No. 1879) on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) website.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the outcomes assessed in studies evaluating surgical endodontic procedures; (2) report on the method of assessment used to measure the outcomes; (3) and assess selective reporting bias in the included studies. The data obtained will be used to inform the development of COS for surgical endodontics.

METHODS

A structured literature search of electronic databases and the grey literature was conducted to identify systematic reviews on periradicular surgery (PS), intentional replantation (IR) and tooth/root resection (RR), published between January 1990 and December 2020. Two independent reviewers were involved in the literature selection, data extraction and the appraisal of the studies identified. The type of intervention, outcomes measured, type of outcomes reported (clinician- or patient-reported), outcome measurement method, and follow-up period, were recorded using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Twenty-six systematic reviews consisting of 19 studies for PS, three studies for IR and four studies for RR were selected for inclusion. Outcome measures identified for PS and IR included pain, swelling, mobility and tenderness, outcomes related to periodontal/soft tissue healing (including sinus tract), periradicular healing, tooth survival, life impact (including Oral-Health-Related-Quality-of-Life), resource use and/or adverse effects. For RR, in addition to tooth survival, endodontic complications, and adverse effects, the outcome measures were primarily periodontal-related, including pocket depth reduction, attachment gain, periodontal disease, and periodontic-endodontic lesions. The majority of outcome measures for PS, IR, and RR were assessed clinically, radiologically and/or via patient history. Specific tools such as rating scales (Visual Analog Scale, Verbal rating Scale, Numerical Rating Scale, and other scales) were used for the assessment of pain, swelling, and tenderness, and validated questionnaires were used for the assessment of oral health-related quality of life. The range of follow-up periods were variable, dependent on the outcome measure and the type of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures, method of assessment and follow-up periods for PS, IR and RR were identified and categorised to help standardise the reporting of outcomes for future research studies. Additional outcome measures that were not reported, but may be considered in the COSET consensus process include loss of root-end filling material, number of clinic visits, surgery-related dental anxiety and muco-gingival aesthetic-related measures, such as scarring, black triangles, root surface exposure, and tissue discolouration.

Scanning electron microscopic examination of resected root apices obtained from endodontic microsurgery

This study was designed to examine the morphological features of the resected root apices obtained from endodontic microsurgery using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) as well as their anatomical effect on the clinical outcome of the surgical treatment. One-hundred-six resected root apices from 91 patients/surgeries were obtained by endodontic microsurgery, and fixed immediately for storage. The resected apices were prepared for SEM to examine their morphological features, such as the number and size of the apical foramina. The patients were periodically checked up at least 1 year and the clinical outcome of the microsurgery was judged as a success or failure according to the Molven's criteria. The SEM findings and the clinical outcome of apical surgery were evaluated to see any potential correlation between them. The SEM examination revealed that 60.4% of specimens had more than two portals of exit on the resected root apices and the size of the major foramen was at least 386 micrometer and 334 micrometer from maxillary and mandibular molar, respectively. With a recall rate of 72.9%, 91.9% of the surgical cases were decided to have successful outcomes. Based on this SEM study, a relatively high frequency of multiple portals of exit was existed and the sizes of major foramina were bigger than that were reported in previous reports. The clinical outcomes of endodontic microsurgery were not correlated with the anatomical features of resected apical root apices. SCANNING 38:455-461, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The ratio in choosing access flap for surgical endodontics: a review

In Surgical Endodontics we face complex situations that require the knowlflap and application of both principles of endodontics (cleansing shaping and filling) in the root management, and the principles of surgery (asepsis, non harmfulness and hemostasis) in the phase of access to the root. Among the factors of surgical relevance that for which have been proposed with the largest number of alternatives is the design of access flap. That clearly indicates that not only one flap design can be ideal in all clinical situations. In this article all proposed access flap designs are evaluated in the light of their degree of compliance with ideal requirements in different circumstances. A clear pattern in the decision-making criteria for the selection of access flaps is proposed.