Deep caries presents a dilemma in terms of which treatment that will render an optimal prognosis by maintaining pulp vitality with absence of apical pathology. Previously, 2 randomized clinical trials were performed testing the short-term effects of stepwise carious tissue removal versus nonselective carious removal to hard dentin with or without pulp exposure. The aim of this article was to report the 5-y outcome on these previously treated patients having radiographically well-defined carious lesions extending into the pulpal quarter of the dentin but with a well-defined radiodense zone between the carious lesion and the pulp. In this long-term study, 239 of 314 (76.2%) patients were analyzed. The stepwise removal group had a significantly higher proportion of success (60.2%) at 5-y follow-up compared with the nonselective carious removal to hard dentin group (46.3%) (P = 0.031) when pulp exposures per se were included as failures. Pulp exposure rate was significantly lower in the stepwise carious removal group (21.2% vs. 35.5%; P = 0.014). Irrespective of pulp exposure status, the difference (13.3%) was still significant when sustained pulp vitality without apical radiolucency and unbearable pain was considered (95% confidence interval, 3.1–26.3, P = 0.045). After pulp exposure, only 9% (n = 4) of the analyzed patients were assessed as successful, indicating that the prognosis is highly dubious following conventional pulp-capping procedures (direct pulp capping or partial pulpotomy) in deep carious lesions in adults. In conclusion, the stepwise carious removal group had a significantly higher proportion of pulps with sustained vitality without apical radiolucency versus nonselective carious removal of deep carious lesions in adult teeth at 5-y follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00187837 and NCT00187850).

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.