Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Department of Endodontic, Adelaide Dental School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Eur Endod J. 2020 Dec;5(3):159-176. doi: 10.14744/eej.2020.88942.
Consistent reporting of publications in a given topic is essential. This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the reporting items in previous publications related to root canal anatomy in major Endodontic journals.
A systematic review was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers using a customized search strategy in major Endodontic journals through Scopus until November 2019. Studies investigating root and canal anatomy were included. The selected publications were divided into 7 categories according to the study design: micro-computed tomography (microCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) experimental studies (extracted teeth), CBCT and 2D clinical studies, CBCT and 2D case reports in addition to others (i.e. staining and clearing method and root sectioning). The selected studies were evaluated according to three domains: 1) Criteria for study sample selection; 2) Criteria for methodological procedures and 3) Criteria for detection and evaluation.
After the removal of duplicated and irrelevant papers, 137 articles were included. Results showed that microCT studies reported accurately the tooth type, number of teeth, classifications used, qualitative and/or quantitative analysis (if required) and the evaluation process. However, sample size calculation, calibration, and reproducibility were not reported in the majority of microCT studies. CBCT clinical studies presented information for the type of study, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of patients, tooth type, and number of teeth. However, the majority did not report sample size calculation and calibration of examiners. Radiographic exposure descriptions and classifications used were not reported adequately in CBCT and 2D case reports. Sample size calculation, calibration and reproducibility were not reported in staining and clearing method.
Despite accurate presentation of certain items, there is considerable inconsistent reporting of root and canal morphology regardless of the type of study and experimental procedure used. The PROUD checklist protocol presented in this systematic review aims to provide an accurate description of root canal anatomy in experimental, clinical, and case report publications.
在给定主题的出版物中进行一致的报告是至关重要的。本系统评价旨在识别和评估主要牙髓学期刊中以前发表的与根管解剖学相关的出版物中的报告项目。
本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 指南进行。两名独立审查员使用定制的搜索策略，通过 Scopus 在主要牙髓学期刊中进行全面的文献搜索，直到 2019 年 11 月。纳入研究根管和解剖学的研究。根据研究设计将选定的出版物分为 7 类：微计算机断层扫描 (microCT) 和锥形束计算机断层扫描 (CBCT) 实验研究（提取牙齿）、CBCT 和 2D 临床研究、CBCT 和 2D 病例报告以及其他研究（即染色和透明方法和根管切片）。根据三个领域评估选定的研究：1）研究样本选择标准；2）方法学程序标准；3）检测和评估标准。
去除重复和不相关的论文后，纳入了 137 篇文章。结果表明，microCT 研究准确报告了牙齿类型、牙齿数量、使用的分类、定性和/或定量分析（如有要求）以及评估过程。然而，microCT 研究中大多数未报告样本量计算、校准和可重复性。CBCT 临床研究提供了研究类型、纳入/排除标准、患者数量、牙齿类型和牙齿数量的信息。然而，大多数研究未报告检查者的样本量计算和校准。CBCT 和 2D 病例报告中未充分报告放射暴露描述和使用的分类。染色和透明方法中未报告样本量计算、校准和可重复性。
尽管某些项目的呈现准确无误，但无论使用何种研究类型和实验程序，根管和形态的报告都存在相当大的不一致。本系统评价中提出的 PROUD 清单方案旨在为实验、临床和病例报告出版物中根管解剖学提供准确描述。
