An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology.

No abstract

Background: Scaling and root planing (SRP) for the treatment of periodontitis may be less effective in some patients. This study evaluated the effectiveness of local doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP among smokers with periodontitis compared to SRP alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched till November 2018 for English publications. RCTs that compared the effect of local doxycycline adjunct to SRP among smokers with periodontitis were selected. Patient characteristics, disease characteristics, and outcome data on clinical attachment level (CAL) and periodontal probing depth at 1, 3- and 6-month follow-up was extracted. Quality of selected studies was assessed by the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Random effects model and trial sequential analysis were performed. GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. P > 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: Five trials were included in the review. Local use of doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP was effective in gain of 1.1 mm (0.47–1.74, P = 0.091) in CAL at 6 months calculated from two studies. The evidence was of low quality, and at least a total of 866 patients are required for conclusiveness. Conclusion: Local doxycycline as an adjunct to SRP significantly improved clinical attachment in smokers with periodontitis and can be recommended. Studies are required with long-term follow-up and patient-related outcome data.

Objectives The purpose of this study is to systematically appraise the reporting quality of abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in pediatric dentistry using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts and to analyze the relationship between the characteristics of the RCT to the quality of abstracts. Materials and Methods RCTs published in Pediatric Dentistry were retrieved from the PubMed database from 2016 to 2021. The quality of abstracts was appraised using CONSORT for abstracts checklist by two independent reviewers. Statistical Analysis In descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage analysis were used for categorical variables, whereas mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables. To find the significant difference between the bivariate samples in independent groups, Mann–Whitney U test was employed. Multivariate analysis was performed using Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U tests. Probability value of p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results Two hundred abstracts were included in the study. All the abstracts adequately reported the “objective” item, whereas only 2 and 4% of abstracts adequately addressed “randomization” and “harms” items, respectively. A significant relationship was observed between the continent of first author/corresponding author, number of authors, impact factor, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, word count, focus of study, and a priori protocol registration to the quality of abstracts (p < 0.05). Conclusion The abstracts of the RCT included in the study did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract guidelines. Adherence to the reporting guidelines would improve the overall reporting quality of abstracts of RCT published in Pediatric Dentistry. The overall mean score of the abstracts was 6.80 out of 15 indicating that the abstracts did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract reporting guidelines.

Introduction: There is a well-documented association between coronary artery disease (CHD) and periodontal disease (PD) mediated by common inflammatory pathways. This association, however, has not been investigated extensively in the special context of in-stent restenosis. This study aimed to investigate the periodontal status of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for restenotic lesions. Methods and Results: We enrolled 90 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and 90 age- and gender-matched healthy controls in the present study. All subjects received a full-mouth examination by a periodontist. Plaque index, periodontal status, and tooth loss were determined. The periodontal state was significantly worse (p < 0.0001) in the PCI group, and each periodontal stage increased the odds of belonging to the PCI group. This effect of PD was independent of diabetes mellitus, another strong risk factor for CAD. The PCI group was further divided into two subgroups: PCI for restenotic lesions (n = 39) and PCI for de novo lesions (n = 51). Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were comparable between the two PCI subgroups. A significant (p < 0.001) association was found between the PCI subgroup and the severity of periodontal disease, with the incidence of severe PD reaching 64.1%. Conclusions: Patients undergoing PCI for in-stent restenosis exhibit more severe forms of periodontal disease not only as compared to healthy controls but also as compared to patients stented for de novo lesions. The potential causality between PD and restenosis must be studied in larger prospective studies.