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/).

Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus‐based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face‐to‐Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines.

Over the last two decades, calcium silicate-based materials have grown in popularity. As root canal sealers, these formulations have been extensively investigated and compared with conventional sealers, such as zinc oxide–eugenol and epoxy resin-based sealers, in in vitro studies that showed their promising properties, especially their biocompatibility, antimicrobial properties, and certain bioactivity. However, the consequence of their higher solubility is a matter of debate and still needs to be clarified, because it may affect their long-term sealing ability. Unlike conventional sealers, those sealers are hydraulic, and their setting is conditioned by the presence of humidity. Current evidence reveals that the properties of calcium silicate-based sealers vary depending on their formulation. To date, only a few short-term investigations addressed the clinical outcome of calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. Their use has been showed to be mainly based on practitioners’ clinical habits rather than manufacturers’ recommendations or available evidence. However, their particular behavior implies modifications of the clinical protocol used for conventional sealers. This narrative review aimed to discuss the properties of calcium silicate-based sealers and their clinical implications, and to propose rational indications for these sealers based on the current knowledge.

In evidence‐based healthcare, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well‐documented, validated consensus‐based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP, SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face‐to‐Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19^th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13^th September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD, LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.

The promotion of minimally invasive treatments focussed on the maintenance of pulp vitality has become a priority area in Endodontics. These vital pulp treatments (VPT) include partial and full pulpotomy, during which diseased coronal pulp tissue is removed prior to placement of a capping biomaterial and restoration. Traditionally, pulpotomies were confined to the treatment of carious primary and traumatized permanent teeth. However, these treatments have now been proposed as definitive solutions for cariously exposed permanent teeth with mild symptoms or even symptoms indicative of irreversible disease. Until recently, it was recommended that carious exposure of mature permanent teeth be managed by root canal treatment. The promotion of pulpotomy as an alternative treatment has opened up a wave of laboratory and clinical research aimed at improving therapies or evaluating clinical outcomes. In modern evidence‐based endodontics, it is imperative that the outcomes of both partial and full pulpotomy are considered and important prognostic factors identified, so that improvements can be made to aid clinical decision‐making and to direct new research. In this narrative review, the outcomes of partial and full pulpotomy are discussed, before analysis of patient, intraoperative and postoperative factors that influence the outcome of the pulpotomy procedure. The review highlights that although partial and full pulpotomy for the treatment of even pulpal disease are highly successful procedures, this is based on low‐quality evidence with a lack of prospective, comparative trials investigating potential prognostic factors. Based on current evidence, it appears that age, gender, tooth type, root development and intraoperative pulpal haemorrhage do not impact significantly on pulpotomy outcome, whilst others such as caries depth, inflammatory status of the pulp, capping material, level of inflammatory pulpal‐biomarkers and the final restoration integrity do. Other factors, including the influence of exposure type, periodontal condition, pulpal lavage, magnification, operator experience, isolation of the operating field and type of pulpotomy, require further experimental investigation before definitive conclusions can be made relating to the success of the pulpotomy procedure. Finally, there is not only a need for future well‐designed prospective research addressing these issues but also a widening of our understanding of outcome to include patient‐reported as well as clinician‐reported outcomes.

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 endodontics research projects because they are 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 guide 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 a 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.