Nickel-titanium rotary instruments are important adjuncts in endodontic therapy. This review attempts to identify factors that influence shaping outcomes with these files, such as preoperative root-canal anatomy and instrument tip design. Other, less significant factors include operator experience, rotational speed, and specific instrument sequence. Implications of various working length definitions and desired apical widths are correlated with clinical results. Despite the existence of one ever-present risk factor, dental anatomy, shaping outcomes with nickel-titanium rotary instruments are mostly predictable. Current evidence indicates that wider apical preparations are feasible. Nickel-titanium rotary instruments require a preclinical training period to minimize separation risks and should be used to case-related working lengths and apical widths. However, and despite superior in vitro results, randomized, clinical trials are required to evaluate outcomes when using nickel-titanium instruments.

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/).

Root canal morphology changes during canal preparation, and these changes may vary depending on the technique used. Such changes have been studied in vitro by measuring cross-sections of canals before and after preparation. This current study used nondestructive high-resolution scanning tomography to assess changes in the canals' paths after preparation. A microcomputed tomography scanner (cubic resolution 34 microm) was used to analyze 18 canals in 6 extracted maxillary molars. Canals were scanned before and after preparation using either K-Files, Lightspeed, or ProFile .04 rotary instruments. A special mounting device enabled precise repositioning and scanning of the specimens after preparation. Differences in surface area (deltaA in mm2) and volume (deltaV in mm3) of each canal before and after preparation were calculated using custom-made software. deltaV ranged from 0.64 to 2.86, with a mean of 1.61 +/- 0.7, whereas deltaA varied from 0.72 to 9.66, with a mean of 4.16 +/- 2.63. Mean deltaV and deltaA for the K-File, ProFile, and Lightspeed groups were 1.28 +/- 0.57 and 2.58 +/- 1.83; 1.79 +/- 0.66 and 4.86 +/- 2.53; and 1.81 +/- 0.57 and 5.31 +/- 2.98, respectively. Canal anatomy and the effects of preparation were further analyzed using the Structure Model Index and the Transportation of Centers of Mass. Under the conditions of this study variations in canal geometry before preparation had more influence on the changes during preparation than the techniques themselves. Consequently studies comparing the effects of root canal instruments on canal anatomy should also consider details of the preoperative canal geometry.

A detailed understanding of the complexity of root canal systems is imperative to ensure successful root canal preparation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential and accuracy of a three-dimensional, non-destructive technique for detailing root canal geometry by means of high-resolution tomography. The anatomy of root canals in 12 extracted human maxillary molars was analyzed by means of a micro-computed tomography scanner (μCT, cubic resolution 34 μm). A special mounting device facilitated repeated precise repositioning of the teeth in the μCT. Surface areas and volumes of each canal were calculated by triangulation, and means were determined. Model-independent methods were used to evaluate the canals' diameters and configuration. The calculated and measured volumes and the areas of artificial root canals, produced by the drilling of precision holes into dentin disks, were well-correlated. Semi-automated repositioning of specimens resulted in near-perfect matching (< 1 voxel) when outer canal contours were assessed. Root canal geometry was accurately assessed by this innovative technique; therefore, variables and indices presented may serve as a basis for further analyses of root canal anatomy in experimental endodontology.

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.Aim: 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.Conclusion: 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.