Mohammad Hossein Nekoofar

Aim: The aim of this study was to present three cases of COVID‐19‐related mucormycosis mimicking endodontic pain and to discuss the relevant dental and medical literature for this potential life‐threatening disease. Summary: Mucormycosis (previously called zygomycosis) is a rare but serious infection caused by a group of fungi called mucormycetes. Mucormycosis mainly affects people who are medically compromised and have systemic health conditions or take drugs that lower their immune response. There has been an increase in case reports/series of mucormycosis in individuals diagnosed with COVID‐19. This is likely attributable to the high doses and prolonged use of corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. This increase in the prevalence of the condition is of importance, primarily because the fatality rate of patients with mucormycosis is high. Moreover, rapid growth and dissemination into soft tissue and bone with angioinvasion of the fungus are common, and delays in diagnosis can be fatal. This report describes three cases of mucormycosis that were associated with COVID‐19 and presented with symptoms that mimicked odontogenic pain.

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus‐based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride‐endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

We aimed to analyze and visualize the science map of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) with high Altmetric attention scores (AAS). On 10 May 2019, the Altmetric data of the CSR Database were obtained from the Altmetric database (Altmetric LLP, London, UK). Bibliometric data of the top 5% of CSR were extracted from the Web of Science. Keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship, and co-citation network analysis were then employed using VOSviewer software. A Random forest model was used to analyze the citation patterns. A total of 12016 CSR with AAS were found (Total mentions: 259968) with Twitter being the most popular Altmetric resource. Consequently, the top 5% (607 articles, mean AAS: 171.2, 95% confidence level (CL): 14.4, mean citations: 42.1, 95%CL: 1.3) with the highest AAS were included in the study. Keyword co-occurrence network analysis revealed female, adult, and child as the most popular keywords. Helen V. Worthington (University of Manchester, Manchester, UK), and the University of Oxford and UK had the greatest impact on the network at the author, organization and country levels respectively. The co-citation network analysis revealed that The Lancet and CSR database had the most influence on the network. However, AAS were not correlated with citations (r=0.15) although they were correlated with policy document mentions (r=0.61). The results of random forest model confirmed the importance of policy document mentions. Despite the popularity of CSR in the Twittersphere, disappointingly, they were rarely shared and discussed within the new academic tools that are emerging, such as F1000 prime, Publons, and PubPeer. Article Highlights: The CSR database was most mentioned in Twitter. Twitter and News act as the greatest prominent issues regarding altmetric scores.

Aim: To analyse and visualize the knowledge structure of scientific articles in the field of Endodontology with high altmetric attention scores to discover hot topics, active researchers and the journals involved.Methodology: On 5 June 2019, the altmetric database (Altmetric LLP, London, UK) was searched using the titles of 11 endodontic journals. Bibliometric data from endodontic articles and journals with an altmetric score >5 (top 5%) were retrieved from PubMed and analysed using the VOSviewer. Science mapping of articles with an altmetric score >5 at two levels was created: author keywords co‐occurrence and co‐authorship network analysis.Results: Of the 2197 articles in the field of Endodontology identified with altmetrics, 192 had altmetric scores >5 (top 5%). Considering the total mentions amongst all altmetric resources, the Journal of Endodontics had the highest rank followed by the International Endodontic Journal and Australian Endodontic Journal. Twitter was the most popular altmetric data resource followed by patents and Facebook. Meta‐analysis, systematic review and pulpitis were the hot topics. At the author level, Dummer P.M.H had the greatest influence on the network. There was no significant correlation between altmetric score and citations count (P > 0.05). Mendeley mentions correlated with citations (P < 0.05).Conclusions: Overall, the altmetric scores of topics within Endodontology were low, possibly due to the specific and specialized nature of the specialty, as well as the difficulty members of the public probably have in understanding endodontic research. Journals and researchers with a focus on Endodontology would have more influence if they were to set‐up their own social media profiles and thus enhance their visibility and social impact by immediately sharing research findings and communicating with their network and audience.

Background: Pain management can be challenging during root canal treatment of teeth with irreversible pulpitis.Aim: To identify whether articaine or lidocaine is the most appropriate local anaesthetic solution for teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment.Data source: The protocol of this umbrella review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019137624). PubMed, EBSCHO host and Scopus databases were searched until June 2019.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions: Systematic reviews published in English comparing the effectiveness of local anaesthesia following administration of articaine or lidocaine in patients undergoing root canal treatment of teeth diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and carried out the data extraction and the appraisal of the included reviews. Disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer.Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The quality of the included reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR tool (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Each of the 11 AMSTAR items was given a score of 1 if the specific criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.Results: Five systematic reviews with meta‐analyses were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 8 to 11, out of a maximum score of 11, and all reviews were categorized as ‘high’ quality. Two reviews scored 0 for item 8 in AMSTAR because the scientific quality of the clinical trials included in these reviews was not used in the formulation of the conclusions.Limitations: Systematic reviews published only in the English language were included. Only a small number of studies were available to assess pain intensity during the injection phase, the time until the onset of anaesthesia and the occurrence of adverse events.Conclusions and implications of key findings: Articaine is more effective than lidocaine for local anaesthesia of teeth with irreversible pulpitis undergoing root canal treatment. There is limited evidence that injection of articaine is less painful, has more rapid onset and has fewer adverse events compared with lidocaine.

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five‐step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9‐point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face‐to‐face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.