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/).

Background/Aim Dental trauma is a public health issue with a high prevalence in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge of dentists in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, of the management of traumatic dental injuries, using the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) Guidelines as a reference. Materials and Methods An electronic questionnaire investigating personal and professional characteristics and 12 questions about dento‐alveolar trauma, was sent to all registered dentists of the Regional Council of Dentistry of Rio Grande do Sul (n=14 753). The respondents were grouped according to the sociodemographic and professional profiles and the data were evaluated by the Student‐T test or one‐way ANOVA, with Tukey's post‐hoc, with α = 5%. Results A total of 1414 dentists responded to the survey (9.59% response rate). The overall mean self‐reported knowledge of dental trauma was 5.87 ± 1.57, of a maximum possible score of 12. Some factors associated with a higher knowledge of the IADT guidelines were: female gender, previous clinical experience, years from qualification, self‐reported knowledge, and academic postgraduate degree. Dentists who are specialized in endodontics (6.58 ± 1.63) and pediatric dentistry (6.05 ± 1.44) achieved higher levels of knowledge on dental trauma. Analysis of the characteristics (gender, location, and proportion of specialists) of the respondents confirmed that they were representative of the target population. Conclusion The overall level of knowledge of dentists from Rio Grande do Sul of the IADT guidelines is moderate. These results highlight the need for continuing education on dento‐alveolar trauma in this population.

Activation increased the tissue-dissolving activity of irrigants from artificial grooves in root canals of maxillary central incisors.

Background/aim: The concept of regenerative endodontic procedures remains con-

This review aims to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of calcium hydroxide against endodontic pathogens when used for 7 days or longer. A systematic electronic literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase and EBSCO Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source databases using appropriate key words to identify investigations written in the English language that examined the association between the contact time of intracanal calcium hydroxide dressing and its antimicrobial properties. There were no exclusions based on study design. The search yielded 6993 publications. After duplicate removal, 5913 publications were identified and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results showed that the antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide for contact times ranging between seven and 45 days is comparable. Two studies demonstrated contradictory findings when exposure was extended to more than 45 days. Future studies are warranted to investigate and optimise calcium hydroxide application for longer periods and identify the potential benefits of its use in clinical settings.

There is increased interest in outcome measures that complement the classic goal of endodontics, being the prevention and healing of apical periodontitis. Possible outcome measures can be subdivided into patient‐centred outcomes (PCOs), encompassing data collected by nonpatients aiming to assess the effectiveness of an intervention and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), which are reported directly by the patient. PROs can be subsequently classed into PRO measures that ascertain patients' view of their symptoms, their functional status, and their health‐related quality of life, and patient‐reported experience measures that focus on aspects including the humanity of care, patient satisfaction, patient preference and adherence, personal costs, expectation fulfilment, and decision regrets. The present review aims to define various patient‐related outcomes and discuss the literature available regarding PCOs and PROs in endodontics. This includes those proposed to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3‐level clinical practice guidelines that have been included by all working groups, except for the radiographic assessment of apical periodontitis. Based on limited evidence in the field, it can be summarized that after recall periods of various lengths, endodontic treatment is associated with a high likelihood of tooth survival and limited need for further intervention, including extraction and further restorative procedures. Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is likely to improve following the completion of treatment. Nonetheless, the literature assessing the association between OHRQoL and endodontics is hampered by the use of instruments that have not been previously validated. Amongst the remaining outcome measures discussed in the present review, it is worth highlighting that there is only one study assessing exacerbations in teeth with the presence of endodontic pathosis, which suggests a very low incidence of this adverse effect following endodontic treatment. Patients' expectation fulfilment, adherence, and satisfaction are closely inter‐related and depend also on various nonclinical factors. Further studies assessing PCOs and PROs, in association with healing and prevention of apical periodontitis, are required to better understand endodontic treatment from the perspective of patients.

BackgroundSodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and/or calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) are commonly used during root canal treatment. Evaluation of their effectiveness regarding clinical and patient‐related outcomes requires further understanding.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of root canal irrigation and dressing for the treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis (AP).MethodsA search was conducted in the PubMed‐MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Google scholar databases and available repositories, followed by hand searches, until July 2021. Eligibility criteria followed the a priori formulated Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, and Study design (PICOTS) framework. Clinical studies restricted to English language were included. The revised Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta‐analyses were performed using the fixed‐effect model to obtain Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), with sensitivity analysis. Overall quality of evidence of meta‐analyses was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.ResultsThe search identified 1357 records of which six fulfilled the inclusion criteria, providing data for ‘irrigation’ from 212 teeth and for ‘dressings’ from 438 teeth. Two studies reported no significant difference regarding the outcome ‘pain at 7 days’ using 2% chlorhexidine vs. 5.25% NaOCl and EDTA or after using different concentrations of NaOCl (1% vs. 5%). No significant difference was detected between different NaOCl concentrations regarding the reduction of AP. A meta‐analysis was possible for the comparison of single‐visit (SV) versus multiple‐visits including the use of Ca(OH)2 demonstrating a significant effect in favour of SV (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.03–1.19; p = .007; I2 = 0). RoB of included studies was moderate to low.DiscussionThe use of Ca(OH)2 for the treatment of AP may not be beneficial. There is scarce or no evidence fulfilling the proposed PICOTS regarding irrigants and dressings.ConclusionsThere is moderate certainty that SV treatment is associated with better radiographic evidence of normal periodontal ligament space (strict criteria) compared with the use of Ca(OH)2. Reduction of AP is comparable after irrigation with 1% and 5% NaOCl, whereas postoperative pain at 7 days for the irrigants assessed is similar.RegistrationPROSPERO database CRD42021260271.

Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are self-reported descriptions of a patient's oral health status that are not modified or interpreted by a healthcare professional. Dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) are objective or subjective measurements used to assess dPROs. In oral healthcare settings, the em-How to cite this article: Nagendrababu V, Vinothkumar TS,