Search

Observational studies play a critical role in evaluating the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations as well as in defining the benefits and potential hazards of health‐related interventions. There are currently no reporting guidelines for observational studies in the field of Endodontics. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team has developed and published new reporting guidelines for observational‐based studies called the 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023' guidelines. The PROBE 2023 guidelines were developed exclusively for the speciality of Endodontics by integrating and adapting the 'STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)' checklist and the 'Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP)' principles. The recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines were adhered to throughout the process of developing the guidelines. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for authors by providing an explanation for each of the items in the PROBE 2023 checklist along with relevant examples from the literature. The document also offers advice to authors on how they can address each item in their manuscript before submission to a journal. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely accessible and downloadable from the PRIDE website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/probe/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational studies are non‐interventional studies that establish the prevalence and incidence of conditions or diseases in populations or analyse the relationship between health status and other variables. They also facilitate the development of specific research questions for future randomized trials or to answer important scientific questions when trials are not possible to carry out. This article outlines the previously documented consensus‐based approach by which the Preferred Reporting items for Observational studies in Endodontics (PROBE) 2023 guidelines were developed. A steering committee of nine members was formed, including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding several new items specifically for the specialty of Endodontics. The steering committee then established a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG) and a PROBE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to obtain expert input and feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. The PDG members participated in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items present in the PROBE checklist. The POMG then held detailed discussions on the PROBE checklist generated through the online Delphi process. This online meeting was held via the Zoom platform on 7th October 2022. Following this meeting, the steering committee revised the PROBE checklist, which was piloted by several authors when preparing a manuscript describing an observational study for publication. The PROBE 2023 checklist consists of 11 sections and 58 items. Authors are now encouraged to adopt the PROBE 2023 guidelines, which will improve the overall reporting quality of observational studies in Endodontics. The PROBE 2023 checklist is freely available and can be downloaded from the PRIDE website (https://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/probe/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest‐quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer‐review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory‐based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer‐reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer‐review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer‐review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well‐documented consensus‐based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/prile/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The significance of randomized controlled trials (RCT) depends on how thoroughly the results were reported. Reporting of RCTs should be accurate and transparent and encompasses design, implementation, analysis, and results of the trial. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and its extension were developed to guide the researchers to report clinical trials in a systematic manner. Despite this recommendation, the overall reporting quality of RCTs still remains suboptimal. Aim: To describe the relevance and importance of CONSORT reporting guidelines and explain the items using examples derived from randomized trials published in Paediatric Dentistry. Methods: This is a narrative review that illustrates the importance of reporting items in the CONSORT guidelines from relevant sources. RCTs published in the International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry between 2017 and 2020 were identified from PubMed and Scopus databases and through handsearching. An explanation has been provided for each of the 37 items in the 2010 CONSORT checklist and 17 items in the CONSORT extension for reporting abstracts. Conclusion: This explanation and elaboration document would enable investigators to report trials in Paediatric Dentistry with accuracy and transparency as well as for reviewers and editors in evaluating the suitability of RCTs for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the novel virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) causing coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) has led to a global pandemic and one of the most significant challenges to the healthcare profession. Dental practices are focal points for cross‐infection, and care must be taken to minimise the risk of infection to, from, or between dental care professionals and patients. The COVID‐19 epidemiological and clinical characteristics are still being collated but children's symptoms seem to be milder than those that adults experience. It is unknown whether certain groups, for example children with comorbidities, might be at a higher risk of more severe illness. Emerging data on disease spread in children, affected by COVID‐19, have not been presented in detail. The purpose of this article was to report current data on the paediatric population affected with COVID‐19 and highlight considerations for dentists providing care for children during this pandemic. All members of the dental team have a professional responsibility to keep themselves informed of current guidance and be vigilant in updating themselves as recommendations are changing so quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The 'Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry' (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five‐phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale ('well phrased' or 'needs revision') and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = 'definitely not include' to 9 = 'definitely include'). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face‐to‐face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer‐reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically assess the methodological quality of Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta‐Analyses (MA) published in Paediatric Dentistry journals and to analyse the relationship between the authors, journals, country, review topic, and the year of publication to the methodological quality of SRs and MA. Design: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 and Mann‐Whitney U test and Kruskal‐Wallis test was employed for comparing the AMSTAR score with the journal characteristics. Results: Finally, 24 SRs with MA were included. The overall AMSTAR score of SRs and MA published in paediatric dentistry journals was 7.08 ± 2.41. No statistically significant differences were found between the country, journal or focus of study to the quality of SRs except the number of authors and the year of publication (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The quality of SRs and MA in leading Paediatric Dentistry journals were evaluated with AMSTAR tool and areas where quality could be improved were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Objectives This investigation aimed to evaluate the secular trend exhibited by developing permanent teeth in 5 to 6 years old southern Chinese children. Methods Four hundred radiographs of children born in the years 1981 ( n=200) and 2001 ( n=200) were randomly selected, and then age and gender matched. Maxillary and mandibular teeth on the left side were scored. The number of tooth developmental stages (n-tds) for each stage of development and total n-tds in crown and root development was calculated. Logistic regression, X2 test for occurrence of trend and Fisher's exact test were used to evaluate the variations in n-tds between crown and root maturation and also maturation among different teeth. Dental maturation between boys and girls was also compared. Results In the maxillary dentition, children born in 2001 showed advanced dental maturation (odds ratio, 1.29; P=0.001), and girls exhibited earlier maturation than boys (odds ratio, 1.43; P=0.001). In the mandibular dentition, no significant difference between the years was observed (odds ratio, 0.97; P=0.761), however, girls showed accelerated development than boys (odds ratio, 1.26; P=0.002). Variations in maturation were also observed between individual tooth in the same arch and between the arches. Conclusions Children born in 2001 demonstrated accelerated dental development only in the maxillary dentition. Girls born in 1981 and 2001 exhibited advanced maturation than boys. Variations in development among different teeth in the year groups indicate the need for inclusion of all developing teeth to establish a secular change. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 25:329-334, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marfan syndrome is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder of connective tissue origin that can affect multiple organs. Various oral manifestations have been associated with this syndrome. Hypohyperdontia is a condition of mixed numeric variations that presents a combination of hypodontia with hyperdontia within a single human dentition. The purpose of this paper is to report a case of Marfan syndrome with a concomitant occurrence of hypohyperdontia. A narrative review was also included to describe the other syndromes that had been associated with concomitant hypohyperdontia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]