MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is conducted at Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. UCLP group comprised 48 patients with nonsyndromic UCLP who have had the lip and palate repaired, whereas the control group comprised 48 healthy noncleft cases. The lateral cephalometrics measurements were used to determine the vertical height, sagittal depth of the face, and cranial base length and angle. Maxillary arch dimensions were measured on the study cast including arch width, depth, and length.

RESULTS: Vertical facial height and sagittal depth measurements showed a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in the mean growth pattern in UCLP group. The anterior cranial base length (S-N) was shorter in UCLP children (P < 0.001), while Ba-N length had no significant difference (P = 0.639). Nasion-Sella Tursica-Basion angle was significantly higher in the UCLP group (P = 0.016). Dental arch width with reference to canine-to-canine and first premolar-to- first premolar distance was significantly larger in control (P = 0.001).

DESIGN: The search was conducted in PubMed, Ebscohost, ProQuest, and Scopus databases till June 2021. Children undergoing pulpotomy therapy in primary molars treated with ferric sulfate (FS) and bioactive endodontic materials were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success. Meta-analysis was performed on a random-effects model to assess the success at 6,12,18, and 24 months. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and FS at 24 months for both clinical [RR0.98 (95%CI 0.15,6.34), I2 = 0%] and radiographic [RR0.74 (95%CI: 0.23,2.43), I2 = 0%] success. At 6 months [RR1.36 (95%CI: 0.10,19.34), I2 = 33%], no difference was observed in the clinical [RR1.00 (95%CI: 0.95,1.05), I2 = 0%] and radiographic success [RR0.99 (95%CI: 0.88,1.11), I2 = 51%] between Biodentine (BD), FS and radiographic success of calcium enriched cement and FS [RR0.25 (95%CI: 0.03, 2.22), I2 = 0%].

METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.

RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.

CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.

MATERIALS & METHODS: A previously published questionnaire was used in the current survey. It was an online survey with 12 questions regarding the management of TDIs and some additional questions regarding sociodemographic and professional profiles of the participants were added. The survey was distributed to final-year undergraduate students and postgraduate students in pediatric dentistry and endodontics from 10 dental schools. Simple frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were predominantly used to describe the data. Differences in the median percentage scores among the student categories were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS: A total of 347 undergraduates, 126 postgraduates in endodontics, and 72 postgraduates in pediatric dentistry from 10 dental schools participated in this survey. The postgraduates had a significantly higher percentage score for correct responses compared with the undergraduates. No significant difference was observed between the endodontic and pediatric dentistry postgraduates.