Development of a Core Outcome Set in Endodontics (COS-ENDO): Part 3 - COS-ENDO for Studies of Surgical Endodontics in Permanent Teeth.

Journal: Journal Of Endodontics
Published:
Abstract

Background: Methodological heterogeneity and reporting bias complicate interpreting endodontic outcomes. Supported by the American Association of Endodontists and its Foundation, this study developed the Core Outcome Set in Endodontics (COS-ENDO) to standardize reporting for studies of nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment, surgical endodontics, vital pulp therapy, apexification, and regenerative endodontics. This article, part 3 of a 5-part series, focuses on COS-ENDO for surgical endodontics, while other parts address the remaining treatments.

Methods: Outcomes were identified through a scoping review, a qualitative study with patients, and a web-based survey of American Association of Endodontists practicing members. In a 2-round Delphi survey, clinicians, patients, and researchers rated outcomes on a 9-point scale. Ratings were assessed against consensus criteria, and a virtual meeting finalized COS-ENDO.

Results: Of the 97 invited participants to round 1, 77 registered, and 73 (24 academicians/researchers, 26 clinicians, and 23 patients or their parents/caregivers) assessed 46 outcomes, with 17 excluded. The remaining outcomes-7 achieving consensus for inclusion and 22 lacking consensus-advanced to round 2 for rerating by 70 participants. This resulted in 1 outcome achieving consensus for exclusion, 10 for inclusion, and 18 lacking consensus. In the final meeting, 16 participants finalized the COS-ENDO for surgical endodontics, including Tooth survival, Pain, Signs of infection, Radiographic evidence of periradicular healing, Success, Functional tooth, Need for further intervention, and Adverse events/Complications.

Conclusions: COS-ENDO is an important step in standardizing outcome reporting in endodontics, ensuring consistent reporting and enhancing research utility. Further efforts are needed to establish optimal measurement methods.

Authors
Maryam Zanjir, Elaine Cardoso, Nicola Harman, Ava Khansari, Hamid Jafarzadeh, Gevik Malkhassian, Mike Sabeti, Anita Aminoshariae, Anil Kishen, Joanna E Sale, Prakesh Shah, Amir Azarpazhooh