Diagnosis is a key aspect in endodontic treatment, in a decade where invasive interventions are misapprehended as social tendency instead of medical necessity. All diagnostic facets should be considered before intending the operative phase. Intraoral endodontic radiology-based diagnosis has been shown to be limited. Periapical X-ray is the most used endodontic imaging, yet it does not provide high accuracy. Traditionally, dentists have been trained to diagnose a cyst by certain aspects (size, shape and appearance); hence, an assumption that teeth are affected by “periapical cyst” were subjected to unnecessary extraction or apicoectomy. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the publications that relate the histological diagnosis of a periapical lesion (considered the gold standard) to intraoral X-ray investigation. Ovid Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Mendeley and Scopus were searched for English-language studies comparing periapical diagnosis obtained by using two techniques (histopathology and X-ray). Sixteen articles were included for the final analysis (qualitative and quantitative evaluation) out of which only two supported the statement that periapical diagnosis can be coherently assessed through periapical imaging. Although there is not enough evidence to deliver a definitive conclusion, there are many publications that refute the diagnosis of a cyst via periapical X-ray.

This in vitro study aims to assess the cyclic fatigue resistance of the Protaper Ultimate (PTU) files compared to the Protaper Gold (PTG) and the M3 UDG (M3) files using various motion kinematics in simulated canals. As far as the authors are aware, no study has previously compared the three file systems before this current investigation. Therefore, closing this information gap is the goal of the current research. Methods: A total of (60 new endodontic files were randomly divided into 6 groups (10 files per group); groups 1, 3, and 5 used continuous rotation (CR), while groups 2, 4, and 6 used forward reciprocating motion (FRM). A manufactured stainless-steel artificial canal was used to perform the cyclic fatigue testing. The results were analyzed using Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA. All pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in the time to failure (TTF) for every study group (p < 0.001), with the exception of the PTG and M3 files, which performed similarly using both CR and FRM. Conclusions: The PTU files performed better than the PTG and M3 files in terms of the TTF and number of cycles to failure (NCF) using both CR and FRM.

Root canal therapy (RCT) is usually performed in Romania by general dentists (GDPs) because they are more readily available and more reasonably priced than endodontists. Concerns have been raised about the quality of RCTs performed by GDPs, possibly due to insufficient equipment or knowledge; therefore, this study aims to investigate current endodontic practices in Romania. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted via a questionnaire distributed to 400 randomly selected Romanian dentists, with 285 fully validated completed responses (71.25% response rate). Respondents were grouped by speciality, and statistical analysis, including cross-tabulation and the χ² (chi-square) test, was used, with a significance level set at p ≤ 0.05 for all tests. Results: Significant differences were found in the use of magnification, rubber dam, sodium hypochlorite concentration, and bioceramics (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in preferences for measuring working length (p = 0.166) or rotary instrument motion (p = 0.289). Approximately 6% of the respondents used laser technology with no significant difference across specialities (p = 0.571). Additionally, 77.9% preferred using sodium hypochlorite, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.006) regarding concentration. Conclusions: Most participants, including GDPs, use modern equipment and techniques during RCT, indicating their awareness and competence in current endodontic practices.

Interdisciplinary decision-making significantly influences both the therapeutic potential and clinical outcomes, shaping clinical attitudes and management strategies. As the integration between endodontic and restorative-prosthetic considerations becomes increasingly prevalent, it is essential to understand how different dental specialists, particularly general dental practitioners, prosthodontists and endodontists, approach clinical decision-making and collaborate to optimize patient care. Objectives: This study aims to identify practice disparities in post-endodontic crown placement to inform national policy reforms, including standardised timing protocols and interdisciplinary referral criteria. Methods: A structured questionnaire was distributed to dentists practicing in Romania, yielding 238 collected responses. Results: Substantial variability was found in clinical approaches: diagnostic imaging preferences indicated frequent use of periapical radiography (83.49%) and CBCT (53.67%). Over 70% expressed high confidence in CBCT’s diagnostic precision, significantly higher than periapical radiography (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, p < 0.00001). A statistically significant majority (69.3%, binomial test, p < 0.001) preferred delaying definitive crown placement until radiographic healing of periapical lesions. Logistic regression analysis showed endodontists were significantly less likely to choose invasive treatments compared to other specialists (p = 0.027). Although clinicians widely recognize the significance of prosthetic planning, its early integration into the overall treatment strategy has been inconsistent. Conclusions: This study points out the necessity for standardised guidelines that clearly integrate prosthetic planning into endodontic decision-making, enhancing predictability and tooth preservation.