Addressing conflicts of interest in the research paper: a societal demand in contemporary science?

In the last decade, dialogue between science and society has found a forum in an increasing number of publications on topics such as public engagement with science and public trust in science. Concerning the latter, issues that include cases of research misconduct, accountability in research, and conflicts of interest (COIs) have shaped global discussions on the communication of science. In the publication setting, the perception that hiding COIs and/or not managing them well may affect public trust in the research record has grown among editors. We conducted a search for editorials addressing COIs between 1989 and 2011, using four major databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. We explored the content of these editorials and the relationship they established between COIs and the public trust in science. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between disclosure of COIs and public trust in science has become a major concern among editors. We, thus, argue that COIs should be discussed more openly and frequently in graduate courses in the sciences, around the globe, not only in biomedical but also in non-biomedical areas. This is a critical issue in contemporary science, as graduate students are the future voices and decision-makers of the research community. Therefore, COIs, especially in the broader context of science and society, merit closer attention from policymakers, researchers, and educators. At times of great expectations for public engagement with science, mishandling of COIs may have undesirable consequences for public engagement with science and confidence in the scientific endeavor.     

Reciproc and Reciproc Blue in the removal of bioceramic and resin-based sealers in retreatment procedures

Objectives

To compare the remaining root canal filling material, dentin removal, apical transportation, and apical extrusion of debris after the retreatment of canals filled with bioceramic or resin-based sealers using the Reciproc or Reciproc Blue instruments.

Materials and methods

Sixty mandibular molars with severely curved mesial roots were selected. The samples were initially instrumented with Reciproc (R25) and then divided into four experimental groups according to the endodontic sealer and retreatment instrument (n = 15): BC Sealer/Reciproc (BCRC), BC Sealer/Reciproc Blue (BCRB), AH Plus/Reciproc (AHRC), and AH Plus/Reciproc Blue (AHRB). The procedure time was measured, and an Eppendorf tube was used in each root canal to store the debris extrusion. The samples were scanned by micro-CT before and after retreatment. The apical transportation, volume of dentin, and filling material were evaluated.

Results

There were no significant differences in the reduction of the volume of obturator material or dentin removal between groups (p > .05). There were also no differences in the amount of extruded material or apical transportation (p > .05). The retreatment time for the AHRC group was significantly lower than that for the other groups (p = .004).

Conclusions

All tested instruments obtained similar efficacy in filling material removal procedures, although no system completely removed the filling material. Retreatment of canals filled with bioceramic BC Sealer may be more time consuming.

Clinical relevance

This study reported that Reciproc and Reciproc Blue can be indicated in retreatment of severely curved root canals filled either with bioceramic or resin-based sealers.