Magnification in undergraduate endodontics teaching in the UK and Ireland: a survey of teaching leads in Endodontology

Aim: To investigate the use of magnification in undergraduate endodontic teaching in dental schools within the UK and Ireland and identify factors that may impact on levels of adoption. Methodology: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to teaching leads in undergraduate endodontics in all UK and Ireland dental schools. Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 15 of 18 course leads. The study revealed magnification is not universally embedded within the undergraduate curricula and the majority of schools had no expectation for students to use magnification, although it was encouraged. The study provided insight into teaching staff factors, student factors and institutional factors that impact upon the adoption of magnification in undergraduate endodontic teaching. Although course leads utilised magnification in their own practice, this did not translate into institutional expectation for students to use magnification. Barriers to adoption of such an institutional expectation included cost and lack of staff training. Conclusions: Magnification has become viewed as an essential part of endodontic practice. The dental operating microscope has the most significant impact on endodontic visualisation, however, the use of dental loupes in non‐surgical endodontics could be considered the minimum standard. The pedagogical dilemma faced by dental educators training undergraduates to behave in a manner that they themselves would not, cannot be rationalised on the basis of cost and lack of staff training. It is proposed that although significant, these barriers are not insurmountable and dental loupe use should become an expectation in undergraduate training in the UK and Ireland

Wizard CD Plus and ProTaper Universal: analysis of apical transportation using new software

OBJECTIVE: This study has two aims: 1) to evaluate the apical transportation of the Wizard CD Plus and ProTaper Universal after preparation of simulated root canals; 2) to compare, with Adobe Photoshop, the ability of a new software (Regeemy) in superposing and subtracting images. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty five simulated root canals in acrylic-resin blocks (with 20º curvature) underwent cone beam computed tomography before and after preparation with the rotary systems (70 kVp, 4 mA, 10 s and with the 8×8 cm FoV selection). Canals were prepared up to F2 (ProTaper) and 24.04 (Wizard CD Plus) instruments and the working length was established to 15 mm. The tomographic images were imported into iCAT Vision software and CorelDraw for standardization. The superposition of pre- and post-instrumentation images from both systems was performed using Regeemy and Adobe Photoshop. The apical transportation was measured in millimetres using Image J. Five acrylic resin blocks were used to validate the superposition achieved by the software. Student's t-test for independent samples was used to evaluate the apical transportation achieved by the rotary systems using each software individually. Student's t-test for paired samples was used to compare the ability of each software in superposing and subtracting images from one rotary system per time. RESULTS: The values obtained with Regeemy and Adobe Photoshop were similar to rotary systems (P>0.05). ProTaper Universal and Wizard CD Plus promoted similar apical transportation regardless of the software used for image's superposition and subtraction (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Wizard CD Plus and ProTaper Universal promoted little apical transportation. Regeemy consists in a feasible software to superpose and subtract images and appears to be an alternative to Adobe Photoshop

PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology

PRICE 2020 guidelines for reporting case reports in Endodontics: a consensus-based development

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus‐based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face‐to‐Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines