Abstract Submission FAQs & Samples - American Association of Endodontists

The oral and poster research and table clinic abstract submission site for presentation at AAE26 is now open. Below are FAQs regarding presentations and sample abstracts .

Frequently Asked Questions

I have an AAE Membership. Does my co-presenter need an AAE membership?

May I submit more than one abstract to present? Can I co-present a table clinic if it doesn't conflict with my oral research presentation?

I graduated already, but I did most of my research during my residency. Can I still present my research to be judged for the AAE/Specialty1 Partners Resident Awards?

How do I know which category I should present in?

When submitting your abstract, it is important to select your accurate AAE Membership type. If you have questions regarding your membership type, please contact Cassie Rotolo, crotolo@aae.org. Based on this information, AAE staff will categorize your presentation into one of two categories. In order to be eligible for the judged presentation category, presenters and co-presenters must be post-graduate endodontic students at a CODA-accredited institution and Resident Members of the AAE (or Active 1st Year Members if presenting research completed during residency). Postgraduate student presentations will be judged, unless the presenter indicates he/she does not wish to participate in the competition. Presenters in any other membership category will be in the non-judged category. For specific questions about presentation categories, please contact Cassie Rotolo, crotolo@aae.org.

How do I know if I should submit an Oral Presentation, Poster Presentation, or Table Clinic?

Research projects should be presented in the Oral or Poster Presentation categories, depending on the presenter's preference. Table Clinics should demonstrate a simple, time-saving clinical procedure or technique, or an interesting scientific phenomenon. Case reports should be presented as Table Clinics. Occasionally, the Research and Scientific Affairs Committee will decide unanimously that submitted research is better suited for a presentation modality other than the one elected by the submitter. By submitting an abstract, you acknowledge that reclassification is a potential outcome and agree to allow reviewers to reclassify your elected presentation preference should they determine another modality would be more appropriate. Categories include Oral Research, Poster Research, and Table Clinic presentations. If you choose not to allow reclassification, your submission will be withdrawn and cannot be presented.

What time can I start setting up my poster or table clinic presentation?

All Presenters should begin setting up their poster presentation or table clinic materials up to an hour before the exhibit hall opens on the first day (please see list of important dates within guidelines for specifics). Please be sure to have your "Program Participant" ribbon on your badge to be permitted into the exhibit hall. Preregistered participants will have the ribbon in their envelope at registration. Presenters who register on-site will need to request a ribbon when they register. All poster research presentations must be left on display until the exhibit hall closes at the conclusion of the meeting. If you would like to keep your poster, please pick it up during the last hour the exhibit hall is open (see list of important dates below). Posters that are not claimed by that time will be discarded.

When will I know if my abstract has been accepted?

When will I know what time I'm presenting my research?

Do I receive a discount on the meeting registration for being a presenter?

I am eligible for the AAE Resident Awards. How do I sign up?

I'm presenting as a Predoctoral Student or a graduate student who is not in an endodontic program (other dental post-graduate program or research program). Am I eligible for the AAE/SPECIALTY1 Resident Awards?

How will I know if my presentation is scored among the top 10?

How does the AAE ensure fairness in the judging?

Three members of the Research and Scientific Affairs Committee score each abstract. Their scores are averaged to calculate the written score. The written score is 15% of the total score. Three on-site judges score each presentation. Their scores are averaged to calculate the presentation score. The presentation score is 85% of the total score.  Committee members and judges are required to disclose any conflict of interest. They are not assigned to review or judge an applicant if a conflict of interest has been identified.

Who should I contact with questions related to presenting?

Sample Abstracts

Oral Research Sample

Factors Affecting the Time Lapse between Restorations and Pulp Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study
S. Desai*, A. Tepperman, A. Ben Suleiman, G. Malkhassian, D. Chvartszaid, J. Lai, A. Azarpazhooh
University of Toronto, Ontario; University of British Columbia, British Columbia

Objective(s): This retrospective study aimed to assess the risk factors and critical time elapsed from restoration to pulpal deterioration. Methods: A computerized search of the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry’s electronic patient records (1999-2023) was performed to identify permanent teeth with a history of restoration(s) subsequent endodontic treatment. The mean time lapse between the terminal restoration and endodontic intervention was calculated and the effect of predictor variables was analyzed using Cox regression. Results: 1,363 teeth met the inclusion criteria. The average time elapsed from any terminal restoration to subsequent endodontic treatment was 30.5 months (range: 0.5-266.8 months). It was the longest for crown (46.1 months, n=178), followed by amalgam (32.2 months, n=383), composite resin (26.6 months, n=714), and shortest for glass ionomer restorations (23.5 months, n=88). Terminal restorations with three or more surfaces (24.4 months, n=335), history of three or more prior restorations (24.9 months, n= 63), and history of pulp exposure (20.3 months, n=141) resulted in earlier development of pulp disease. The results for the predictor variables and comparison to matched controls are underway. Conclusions: Restored teeth developed pulpal disease after a mean time lapse of 30.5 months. Crown and amalgam restorations resulted in slower development of pulp disease while multi-surface restorations, multiple restorative interventions, and history of pulp exposure expedited pulpal deterioration. This study was supported by a Foundation for Endodontics grant.

Poster Research Sample

An Innovative Injectable, Retrievable and Sustainable Drug Delivery System for Endodontic Therapy
A. Mahmoud*, A. Sloutski, S. Walker, T. Manders, M. Simon, J. Cymerman, M. Rafailovich
Stony Brook University School of Dental Medicine, New York

Objective: Endodontic treatment failures due to Enterococcus faecalis remains a significant challenge. Calcium hydroxide, a commonly used intracanal medicament, has many limitations, including low flowability, difficulty in full retrieval, and limited efficacy against E. faecalis. This study aims to assess a mixture of calcium hydroxide and salicylic acid (CASA), encapsulated in thermo-reversible F127-DMA hydrogel, as an injectable, retrievable intracanal medicament with antibacterial activity against fibrinogen modified E. faecalis and Streptococcus mutans. Methods: CASA was prepared by mixing calcium hydroxide and salicylic acid and incorporated into F127-DMA at different concentrations (w/w). The mixture was UV-crosslinked using lithium phenyl(2,4,6trimethylbenzoyl) phosphonate (LAP). Chemical properties were analyzed using XRD, Raman spectroscopy, FTIR, and XRF, while injectability and retrievability were assessed using a plastic root canal model and rheology. In vitro antibacterial efficacy against E. faecalis and Streptococcus mutans biofilms was tested using bovine extracted teeth. Results: Encapsulation of CASA in F127-DMA reduced the viscosity by three orders of magnitude compared to the paste form, facilitating injection and retrieval. Furthermore, XRD, Raman, and FTIR analyses confirmed the formation of calcium salicylate and successful integration of CASA into F127DMA. No significant cytotoxicity was observed in DPSCs, and doubling time was not significantly different to control. F127-DMA/CASA exhibited complete eradication of E. faecalis in planktonic form and the biofilm model showed a three-log reduction in bacterial count and no significant difference to the endodontic gold standard of Ca(OH)2 . Conclusion: F127-DMA/CASA exhibits superior flowability, retrievability, optimal pH, biocompatibility and antibacterial efficacy which highlights its therapeutic potential as a significant improvement over calcium hydroxide.

Table Clinic Sample

Management Of Complex Auto-Transplantation Cases Using Printed 3D Models and Teeth
A. Shrivastava*; G. Murphy; A. Elkhatieb; G. Lai; A. Azim
University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry

Auto-transplantation of immature third molars is a viable alternative to replacing non-restorable first molars in young patients. Alternative options include orthodontic movement or dental implants, which can be difficult, costly, or contraindicated in this age group. The process involves extracting the impacted third molar and immediately transplanting it into the prepared first molar site to minimize extraoral time and to allow for the tooth to continue to grow. The procedure, however, is associated with technical challenges, particularly when these third molars are impacted or adjacent to vital structures. In the presence of multiple third molars available for auto transplantation, choosing the most suitable tooth to fit the site can be difficult to decide prior to extraction. This table clinic presents the workflow for 2 clinical cases of auto-transplantation using 3-D planning and printing. The transplanted teeth were immature, impacted third molars. 3-D printing of the teeth and jaws prior to the surgery enabled the clinicians to determine the optimal tooth to transplant, the amount of bone needed to be removed to extract the third molar, and the socket adjustment needed prior to the operation. This approach reduced the chances of error, increased the precision and predictability and reduced the extraoral time. Short-term follow-up reveals promising outcomes, demonstrating complete tooth stability and positive soft and hard tissue remodeling. 