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.

This position statement represents a consensus of an expert committee convened by the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) on Antibiotics in Endodontics. The statement is based on current scientific evidence as well as the expertise of the committee. The goal is to provide dentists and other healthcare workers with evidence‐based criteria for when to use antibiotics in the treatment of endodontic infections, traumatic injuries of the teeth, revascularization procedures in immature teeth with pulp necrosis, and in prophylaxis for medically compromised patients. It also highlights the role that dentists and others can play in preventing the overuse of antibiotics. A recent review article provides the basis for this position statement and more detailed background information (International Endodontic Journal, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12741). Given the dynamic nature of research in this area, this position statement will be updated at appropriate intervals.

The overuse of antibiotics and the emergence of antibiotic‐resistant bacterial strains is a global concern. This concern is also of importance in terms of the oral microbiota and the use of antibiotics to deal with oral and dental infections. The aim of this paper was to review the current literature on the indications and use of antibiotics and to make recommendations for their prescription in endodontic patients. Odontogenic infections, including endodontic infections, are polymicrobial, and in most cases, the prescription of antibiotics is empirical. This has led to the increasing use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics even in cases where antibiotics are not indicated, such as symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, necrotic pulps and localized acute apical abscesses. In case of discrete and localized swelling, the primary aim is to achieve drainage without additional antibiotics. Adjunctive antibiotic treatment may be necessary in the prevention of the spread of infection, in acute apical abscesses with systemic involvement and in progressive and persistent infections. Medically compromised patients are more susceptible to complication arising from odontogenic infections and antimicrobials have a more specific role in their treatment. Therefore, antibiotics should be considered in patients having systemic diseases with compromised immunity or in patients with a localized congenital or acquired altered defence capacity, such as patients with infective endocarditis, prosthetic cardiac valves or recent prosthetic joint replacement. Penicillin VK, possibly combined with metronidazole to cover anaerobic strains, is still effective in most cases. However, amoxicillin (alone or together with clavulanic acid) is recommended because of better absorption and lower risk of side effects. In case of confirmed penicillin allergy, lincosamides such as clindamycin are the drug of choice.