As periodontal and endodontic tissues have a close association, they come into close touch and have a lot of possible places for communication. In a clinical setting, this correlation promotes infection spread and results in the typical endo-perio lesion appearance. Because the two tissues are in close touch with one another, managing such lesions can be difficult. The success of treatment depends on a thorough examination and careful planning, with the sole focus on repair and regeneration. In these situations, bone graft materials with such characteristics have demonstrated encouraging outcomes. The treatment outcome along with a follow-up for a case of an endo-perio lesion with furcation involvement is shown in the accompanying case report. In treating such instances, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary, emphasizing regeneration.

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.

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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: Many of the outcomes included in COSET are patient reported. All should be included in future outcomes studies.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the existing literature on the effect of hard tissue defects on the clinical outcome of endodontic microsurgery (EMS).
METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and grey literature were searched from January 2000 to May 2023. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Review Manager (RevMan Computer program Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilized and the Mantel Haenszel fixed or random effects model was applied, depending on the heterogeneity of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the Risk ratio (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CIs) to correlate the effects of these factors on treatment outcomes.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included. The EMS overall pooled success rate was 84.5%. Five characteristics of hard tissue were identified. The size of the lesion (Small ≤ 5 mm: 78.4% vs. Large > 5 mm: 63.3%, RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.26, P ≤ .05), significantly affected the outcomes of EMS. Endodontic lesions exhibited slightly better outcomes than endodontic-periodontal lesions (81.4% vs. 68.2%, RR = 1.14 95% CI 0.98-1.33, P > .05). Cases with the height of the buccal bone > 3 mm also exhibited slightly better outcomes (91.5% vs. 71.4%, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.88-1.62, P > .05). Additionally, through and through lesions exhibited better outcomes when grafting was completed during the EMS procedure both in 2D (RR = 1.12 95% CI 0.97-1.29, P > .05) and 3D evaluation ((RR = 1.28 95% CI 0.69-2.37 P > .05). The overall quality of evidence was graded as low to high.
CONCLUSIONS: With a low to high quality of evidence, the size of the lesion is a key prognostic variable that significantly affects the outcome of EMS, as lesions ≤ 5 mm exhibit better outcomes as compared to larger lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of hard tissue defects can affect the outcome of endodontic microsurgery (EMS). The presented data can aid the clinicians\' decision-making process by examining certain pre-operative prognostic variables, when considering EMS as a treatment option. Clinical cases with more favorable hard tissue characteristics lead to a better prognosis in EMS.

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.

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.
OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO database (CRD42021260306).

The FDI is currently working on developing a tool to encompass patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) within the overall assessment of outcomes of endodontic treatment. The outcome of endodontic treatment has traditionally been determined by various clinical and radiographic criteria. However, these parameters do not address the impact of treatment on a patient\'s oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). OHRQoL, a crucial PROM, can be used to understand treatment outcome from a patient-centred perspective, thus improving clinician-patient communication whilst guiding decision-making. This focussed review aims to recount the OHRQoL of patients following nonsurgical root canal treatment and surgical endodontic treatment, with a specific focus on the minimal important difference (MID; the minimum score changes of an outcome instrument for a patient to register a clinically significant change in their OHRQoL and/or oral condition) and the methods used to determine it. The current evidence indicates that the OHRQoL of patients requiring root canal treatment is poorer than those without such need. Accordingly, the literature suggests that OHRQoL improves following nonsurgical or surgical endodontic treatment. However, study methodologies vary widely, and conclusions cannot be drawn with high confidence, nor can MID recommendations be provided. Well-designed clinical studies with baseline measurements and appropriate follow-up time frames are therefore needed. Despite that the literature is rife with outcome studies, research on PROMs is an area that deserves greater attention, particularly in relation to the MID. Determining the MID will facilitate the understanding of changes in outcome scores from the patients\' perspective, thus allowing for more informed decision-making in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed decision-making in health care 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 synthesize the available research evidence required for secondary research analysis and guideline development. Core outcome sets (COS) are defined as an agreed standardized 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 and ensuring all trials contribute data to facilitate meta-analyses; 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 leads 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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 standardized 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 was 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 categorized to help standardize 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 mucogingival aesthetic-related measures, such as scarring, black triangles, root surface exposure and tissue discoloration.
BACKGROUND: COMET (No. 1879).

BACKGROUND: The outcome of endodontic treatment is generally assessed using a range of patient and clinician-centred, non-standardised clinical and radiographic outcome measures. This makes it difficult to synthesise evidence for systematic analysis of the literature and the development of clinical guidelines. Core outcome sets (COS) represent a standardised list of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical studies in a particular field. Recently, clinical researchers and guideline developers have focussed on the need for the integration of a patient-reported COS with clinician-centred measures. This study aims to develop a COS that includes both patient-reported outcomes and clinician-centred measures for various endodontic treatment modalities to be used in clinical research and practice.
METHODS: To identify reported outcomes (including when and how they are measured), systematic reviews and their included clinical studies, which focus on the outcome of endodontic treatment and were published between 1990 and 2020 will be screened. The COSs will be defined by a consensus process involving key stakeholders using semi-structured interviews and an online Delphi methodology followed by an interactive virtual consensus meeting. A heterogeneous group of key \'stakeholders\' including patients, general dental practitioners, endodontists, endodontic teachers, clinical researchers, students and policy-makers will be invited to participate. Patients will establish, via interactive interviews, which outcomes they value and feel should be included in a COS. In the Delphi process, other stakeholders will be asked to prioritise outcomes identified from the literature and patient interviews and will have the opportunity at the end of the first round to add outcomes that are not included, but which they consider relevant. Feedback will be provided in the second round, when participants will be asked to prioritise the list again. If consensus is reached, the remaining outcomes will be discussed at an online meeting and agreement established via defined consensus rules of outcome inclusion. If consensus is not reached after the second round, a third round will be conducted with feedback, followed by the online meeting. Following the identification of a COS, we will proceed to identify how and when these outcomes are measured.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a rigorous methodology, the proposed consensus process aims to develop a COS for endodontic treatment that will be relevant to stakeholders. The results of the study will be shared with participants and COS users. To increase COS uptake, it will also be actively shared with clinical guideline developers, research funders and the editors of general dental and endodontology journals.
BACKGROUND: COMET 1879. 21 May 2021.

Adequate hemostasis is a critical step in endodontic surgery. It facilitates the procedure and affects the success and prognosis of the operation. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to systematically assess the efficacy of hemostatic agents in endodontic surgery and to identify the most effective ones.
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost databases were searched up to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of different hemostatic measures in endodontic surgery, and their risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane\'s randomized trial tool (RoB 2.0). Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, with Odds Ratios and 95% confidence intervals (OR, 95% CI) as effect estimates using the \"netmeta\" package in R. The quality of evidence was assessed using the CINeMA approach.
Six RCTs involving 353 patients (mean age 48.12 y) were included. NMA revealed that aluminum chloride achieved higher hemostatic efficacy than epinephrine (OR = 2.55, 95% CI [1.41, 4.64]), while there was non-significant difference when compared with PTFE strips + epinephrine (OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.35, 2.90]), electrocauterization (OR = 2.67, 95% CI [0.84, 8.46]), or ferric sulfate (OR = 8.65, 95% CI [0.31, 240.92]). Of all hemostatic agents, aluminum chloride ranked first in control bleeding during endodontic surgery (P-score = 0.84), followed by PTFE strips + epinephrine (P-score = 0.80), electrocauterization (P-score = 0.34), epinephrine (P-score = 0.34), ferric sulfate (P-score = 0.18). The quality of evidence was very low.
Based on the limited data, aluminum chloride provides better hemostasis than epinephrine, while there was no significant difference between the remaining hemostatic agents used in endodontic surgery, which could help clinicians choose the hemostatic agent that achieves adequate hemostasis. achieve adequate hemostasis. Given insufficient evidence, future RCTs addressing this evidence gap are required.