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.

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.

Background: Periodontitis is one of the major reasons for tooth loss in adults. India, with a population of over 1 billion, is bound to become a developed nation soon. This transition will require a population that is healthy, including in terms of periodontal health. Early studies done in India gave an indication that the population is highly susceptible to periodontitis. Aim: This paper reviews the prevalence of periodontitis in the Indian population. Settings and Design: Review of periodontitis prevalence studies on the Indian population. Materials and Methods: After identifying articles from PubMed and hand searching, the epidemiology of periodontitis is reviewed together with the case definition, study settings, type of population, age and other factors as all these are bound to affect the prevalence rates determined in various studies. Statistical Analysis: None. Results: This review identifies very limited number of studies that provide prevalence data and faces difficulty in comparing various studies due to nonstandardization of case definition and use of nonrepresentative samples. There is a high prevalence of periodontitis among the adults and the economically weak population. Conclusions: There is a very urgent need for standardized population-based studies with a robust design to identify the true prevalence of periodontitis, which in turn will help in planning oral health policies and creating the necessary infrastructure.

Background: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear.Aim: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment.Data source: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions: Systematic reviews with or without meta‐analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer.Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.Results: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as ‘medium’ quality.Limitations: Only two systematic reviews included a meta‐analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included.Conclusions and implications of key findings: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor.

The management of pain during root canal treatment is important. The aim of this systematic review and network meta‐analysis was to identify the anaesthetic solution that would provide the best pulpal anaesthesia for inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were searched to identify studies up to October 2018. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two anaesthetic solutions (lidocaine (lignocaine), articaine, bupivacaine, prilocaine or mepivacaine) used for IANB for treatment of irreversible pulpitis were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Pairwise meta‐analysis, network meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model, and SUCRA ranking were performed. The network meta‐analysis estimated the probability of each treatment performing best. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. In total, 11 studies (n = 750) were included in the meta‐analysis. The network meta‐analysis revealed that only mepivacaine significantly increased the success rate of IANB compared to lidocaine (RR, 1.42 [95% CI 1.04–1.95]). However, no significant differences in the success rate of IANB were observed between mepivacaine and other anaesthetic agents (articaine and bupivacaine). Of all anaesthetic agents, mepivacaine (SUCRA = 0.81) ranked first in increasing the success rate of IANB, followed by prilocaine (SUCRA = 0.62), articaine (SUCRA = 0.54), bupivacaine (SUCRA = 0.41) and lidocaine (SUCRA = 0.13). The overall quality of evidence was very low to moderate. In conclusion, based on the evidence from the randomized clinical trials included in this review, mepivacaine with epinephrine demonstrated the highest probability of providing effective pulpal anaesthesia using IANB for teeth with irreversible pulpitis compared to prilocaine, articaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine. Further, high‐quality clinical trials are needed to support the conclusion of this review.