Patients are always looking for conservative, esthetic, and long-lasting dental restorations, and the technique used directly influences the longevity of the treatment. The location of the restoration in the mouth and the extent of the decay influence the treatment choice. The larger the dimensions of the cavity preparation, the greater the difficulties in restoring the tooth using direct techniques. The semidirect technique, when indicated, can achieve satisfactory results. It is a relatively easy procedure, consisting of tooth preparation to receive an indirect restoration, fabrication of an alginate impression, fabrication of the composite resin restoration on a flexible cast, cementation, removal of excess cement, and occlusal adjustment. The aim of this case report is to present a viable alternative to direct and indirect restorations for posterior teeth with extensive decay. The article describes the extraoral semidirect technique for fabricating a composite resin restoration, highlighting its indications and discussing advantages and disadvantages.

The overall health condition of patients significantly affects the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of endodontic diseases. A systemic consideration of the patient\'s overall health along with oral conditions holds the utmost importance in determining the necessity and feasibility of endodontic therapy, as well as selecting appropriate therapeutic approaches. This expert consensus is a collaborative effort by specialists from endodontics and clinical physicians across the nation based on the current clinical evidence, aiming to provide general guidance on clinical procedures, improve patient safety and enhance clinical outcomes of endodontic therapy in patients with compromised overall health.

Guidelines were developed by the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc. with the intent to describe relevant aspects of contemporary evidence-based root canal treatment. The document aims to support clinicians by describing a Standard of Practice in the Australian context. The presented guidelines refer to Competence criteria and Quality standards for the main steps in root canal treatment. While the intent is not to replace individual clinical decision-making, it is envisaged that these periodically reviewable guidelines may help to improve clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence in cariology teaching is not consistently reflected in paediatric dentistry in the United Kingdom (UK). Many dental schools are not consistently teaching biological approaches to caries management, with outdated or complex methods being taught outwith the purview of general dental practitioners. This scoping review aimed to map current guidelines on the management of caries in children and young people. This is part of a work package to inform the consensus and development of a UK-wide caries management curriculum for paediatric dentistry.
METHODS: A search of electronic databases for peer reviewed literature was performed using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, TRIP Medical Database and Web of Science. Hand searching was undertaken for grey literature (citations of sources of evidence, websites of global organisations and Google Web Search™ (Google LLC, California, USA). Results from databases were screened independently, concurrently by two reviewers. Full texts were obtained, and reviewers met to discuss any disagreement for both database and hand searching.
RESULTS: This review identified 16 guidelines suitable for inclusion. After quality appraisal, eight were selected for synthesis and interpretation. Key themes included the shift towards selective caries removal and avoidance of complete caries removal unless in specific circumstances in anterior teeth. For \"early lesions\" in primary and permanent teeth with and without cavitation, several guidelines recommend biological management including site specific prevention and fissure sealants.
CONCLUSIONS: This review mapping current cariology guidelines for children and young people found gaps in the literature including classification of early carious lesions and management of early cavitated lesions. Areas identified for further exploration include integration of biological caries management into treatment planning, selective caries removal and whether pulpotomy is specialist-level treatment, requiring referral. These results will inform consensus recommendations in the UK, using Delphi methods.

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present consensus paper was to provide recommendations for clinical practice considering the use of visual examination, dental radiography and adjunct methods for primary caries detection.
METHODS: The executive councils of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) nominated ten experts each to join the expert panel. The steering committee formed three work groups that were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity assessment and (3) forming individualised caries diagnoses. The experts responsible for \"caries detection and diagnostic methods\" searched and evaluated the relevant literature, drafted this manuscript and made provisional consensus recommendations. These recommendations were discussed and refined during the structured process in the whole work group. Finally, the agreement for each recommendation was determined using an anonymous Delphi survey.
RESULTS: Recommendations (N = 8) were approved and agreed upon by the whole expert panel: visual examination (N = 3), dental radiography (N = 3) and additional diagnostic methods (N = 2). While the quality of evidence was found to be heterogeneous, all recommendations were agreed upon by the expert panel.
CONCLUSIONS: Visual examination is recommended as the first-choice method for the detection and assessment of caries lesions on accessible surfaces. Intraoral radiography, preferably bitewing, is recommended as an additional method. Adjunct, non-ionising radiation methods might also be useful in certain clinical situations.
CONCLUSIONS: The expert panel merged evidence from the scientific literature with practical considerations and provided recommendations for their use in daily dental practice.

Chemical cleaning and disinfection are crucial steps for eliminating infection in root canal treatment. However, irrigant selection or irrigation procedures are far from clear. The vapor lock effect in the apical region has yet to be solved, impeding irrigation efficacy and resulting in residual infections and compromised treatment outcomes. Additionally, ambiguous clinical indications for root canal medication and non-standardized dressing protocols must be clarified. Inappropriate intracanal medication may present side effects and jeopardize the therapeutic outcomes. Indeed, clinicians have been aware of these concerns for years. Based on the current evidence of studies, this article reviews the properties of various irrigants and intracanal medicaments and elucidates their effectiveness and interactions. The evolution of different kinetic irrigation methods, their effects, limitations, the paradigm shift, current indications, and effective operational procedures regarding intracanal medication are also discussed. This expert consensus aims to establish the clinical operation guidelines for root canal irrigation and a position statement on intracanal medication, thus facilitating a better understanding of infection control, standardizing clinical practice, and ultimately improving the success of endodontic therapy.

Endodontic diseases are a kind of chronic infectious oral disease. Common endodontic treatment concepts are based on the removal of inflamed or necrotic pulp tissue and the replacement by gutta-percha. However, it is very essential for endodontic treatment to debride the root canal system and prevent the root canal system from bacterial reinfection after root canal therapy (RCT). Recent research, encompassing bacterial etiology and advanced imaging techniques, contributes to our understanding of the root canal system\'s anatomy intricacies and the technique sensitivity of RCT. Success in RCT hinges on factors like patients, infection severity, root canal anatomy, and treatment techniques. Therefore, improving disease management is a key issue to combat endodontic diseases and cure periapical lesions. The clinical difficulty assessment system of RCT is established based on patient conditions, tooth conditions, root canal configuration, and root canal needing retreatment, and emphasizes pre-treatment risk assessment for optimal outcomes. The findings suggest that the presence of risk factors may correlate with the challenge of achieving the high standard required for RCT. These insights contribute not only to improve education but also aid practitioners in treatment planning and referral decision-making within the field of endodontics.

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 present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field.
METHODS: A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated.
RESULTS: Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains\' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.