The study investigated the difficulties experienced by endodontics researchers around the world in conducting studies and writing papers.

A survey consisting of 18 questions on the difficulties experienced by endodontics researchers in performing studies and writing papers was e-mailed to academics in the field of endodontics working at 202 universities. The independent risk factors were analyzed using binary logistic regression at a significance level of 0.05.

A total of 581 individuals (10.7%) agreed to participate in the study. Almost half the participants (48.2%) reported that they had received some type of training in conducting studies and writing papers. In response to the question, “Do you get help from a statistician to perform the statistical analyses of your studies?,” 77.1% answered “yes.” Around 40% of the participants stated that the need to obtain ethical approval negatively affected their desire to conduct studies. The participants’ regions had no effect on the reported difficulties associated with writing papers in English or conducting statistical analyses (p > 0.05). Most participants (81.8%) reported difficulties in writing the Discussion section, regardless of their region, academic degrees, or years of experience.

The participants stated they experienced difficulties in many areas, such as conducting statistical analyses, finding new ideas, and writing in English. Engaging in a detailed examination of ethics committee rules, expanding biostatistics education, increasing the number of institutions providing research funding, and increasing the number of endodontics journals can increase the enthusiasm of endodontics researchers to publish papers.

To evaluate postoperative pain after endodontic treatment of necrotic teeth using large intentional foraminal enlargement (LIFE).

The sample included 60 asymptomatic necrotic teeth (with or without chronic apical periodontitis), and a periodontal probing depth of 3 mm, previously accessed and referred to perform endodontic treatment. After previous procedures, the position and approximate size of the apical foramen (AF) were determined by using an apex locator and K flexo-files, respectively. The chemomechanical preparation was performed with Profile 04 files 2 mm beyond the AF to achieve the LIFE, using 2.5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl at each file change. The filling was performed by Tagger's hybrid technique and EndoFill sealer. Phone calls were made to all the patients at 24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment, to classify postoperative pain. Statistical analysis was performed by different tests with a significance level of 5%.

Age, gender, periradicular status and tooth type did not influence postoperative pain (p > 0.05). Only 1 patient (1.66%) reported severe pain after 72 hours. Moderate pain was reported by 7, 4 and 3 patients after 24, 48 and 72 hours, respectively (p = 0.0001). However, paired analyses showed a statistically significant difference only between 24 and 72 hours (p = 0.04). Sealer extrusion did not influence the postoperative pain (p > 0.05).

Acute or moderate postoperative pain was uncommon after endodontic treatment of necrotic teeth with LIFE.

The Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: RBR-3r967t

The aim of this study was to compare smear layer removal by conventional application (CA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EasyClean (EC), and XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), using 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) after chemomechanical preparation, as evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Forty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected for this study. After chemomechanical preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the protocol for smear layer removal, as follows: G1 (control): CA of distilled water; G2 (CA): CA of 17% EDTA; G3 (PUI): 17% EDTA activated by PUI; G4 (EC): 17% EDTA activated by EC; and G5 (XPF): 17% EDTA activated by XPF. SEM images (×1,000) were obtained from each root third and scored by 3 examiners. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05).

In the apical third, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). In the cervical and middle thirds, the experimental groups performed better than the control group (p < 0.05); however, G2 presented better results than G3, G4, and G5 (p < 0.05), which showed no differences among one another (p > 0.05).

No irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.

This study evaluated smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation.

Forty-five extracted uniradicular human mandibular premolars with single canals were treated endodontically. The cervical and middle thirds of the fillings were then removed, and the specimens were divided into 9 groups: G1, saline solution (NaCl); G2, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G3, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX); G4, 11.5% polyacrylic acid (PAA); G5, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). For the groups 6, 7, 8, and 9, the same solutions used in the groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were used, respectively, but activated with ultrasonic activation. Afterwards, the roots were analyzed by a score considering the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope.

EDTA achieved the best performance compared with the other solutions evaluated regardless of the irrigation method (p < 0.05).

Ultrasonic activation did not significantly influence smear layer removal.