BACKGROUND: The European Society of Endodontology published in 2023, the S3-level clinical practice guidelines, which supersede the Quality Guidelines for Endodontic Treatment published in 2006.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize and compare the above guidelines to support their dissemination.
METHODS: A narrative synthesis of the main differences alongside tabulation according to the main themes.
RESULTS: Three tables were prepared according to the following themes: diagnosis of pulpal and apical condition; treatment of pulpitis; and treatment of nonvital pulp and apical periodontitis.
CONCLUSIONS: A compared and simplified message regarding the most recent clinical practice guidelines has been prepared.
BACKGROUND: Not applicable as a narrative review.

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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) is distinct from non-odontogenic rhinosinusitis, and often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers to make the diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to develop international multidisciplinary consensus on diagnosing ODS.
A modified Delphi method was used to assess for expert consensus on diagnosing bacterial ODS. A multidisciplinary panel of 17 authors with ODS expertise from 8 countries (8 otolaryngologists, 9 dental specialists) was assembled. Each author completed 2 of 3 surveys (2 specialty-specific, and 1 for all authors). Thirty-seven clinical statements were created, focusing on 4 important diagnostic components: suspecting ODS; confirming sinusitis in ODS; confirming different dental pathologies causing ODS; and multidisciplinary collaborative aspects of diagnosing ODS. Target audiences were all otolaryngologists and dental providers.
Of the 37 clinical statements, 36 reached consensus or strong consensus, and 1 reached no consensus. Strong consensus was reached that certain clinical and microbiologic features should arouse suspicion for ODS, and that multidisciplinary collaboration between otolaryngologists and dental providers is generally required to diagnose ODS. To diagnose ODS, otolaryngologists should confirm sinusitis mainly based on nasal endoscopic findings of middle meatal purulence, edema, or polyps, and dental providers should confirm dental pathology based on clinical examination and dental imaging.
Based on multidisciplinary international consensus, diagnosing ODS generally requires otolaryngologists to confirm sinusitis, and dental providers to confirm maxillary odontogenic pathology. Importantly, both dental providers and otolaryngologists should suspect ODS based on certain clinical features, and refer patients to appropriate providers for disease confirmation.

The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare treatment outcomes of direct and indirect permanent restorations in endodontically treated teeth, and provide clinical suggestions for restoring teeth after endodontic treatment.
Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and gray literature were screened for articles in English that reported on prospective and retrospective clinical studies of direct or indirect restorations after endodontic treatment with an observation period of at least 3 years. Primary outcomes were determined to be short-term (≤ 5 years) and medium-term (> 5 and ≤ 10 years) survival. Secondary outcomes included restorative and endodontic success of restored teeth. The quality of included studies and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane Collaboration\'s tool for RCTs (randomized controlled trials), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist for cross-sectional studies. The GRADE system was used for assessing collective strength of the overall body of evidence.
Of 2547 screened articles, only 9 (2 RCTs, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 3 cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria, and 8 studies were used in the meta-analysis. In general, indirect restorations (mostly full crowns) showed higher 5-year survival (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.43, p < 0.00001) and 10-year survival (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.31, p < 0.00001) than direct restorations. However, there was no statistical difference in short-term (≤ 5-years) restorative success (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05-2.12, p = 0.24) and endodontic success (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, p = 0.22).
Based on current evidence, there is a weak recommendation for indirect restorations to restore endodontically treated teeth, especially for teeth with extensive coronal damage. Indirect restorations using mostly crowns have higher short-term (5-year) and medium-term (10-year) survival than do direct restorations using composite or amalgam (GRADE quality of evidence: low to moderate), but no difference in short-term (≤ 5 years) restorative success (low quality) and endodontic success (very low quality). There is a need for high-quality clinical trials, especially well-designed RCTs.