Mohammed Turky, Ove A. Peters, Paul V. Abbott
The rapid emergence of novel concepts in endodontics-ranging from minimally invasive approaches to digital workflows and artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making-has significantly reshaped contemporary discourse within the specialty. While innovation is essential for progress, it is crucial to recognize that not all conceptual advances are inherently clinically responsible. The premature translation of inadequately validated concepts can expose patients to unforeseen risks and compromise long-term treatment outcomes. This article proposes a structured framework for defining clinical responsibility in the development of endodontic concepts. Grounded in key pillars-biological plausibility, proportional evidence, ethical accountability, and clinical applicability-this framework aims to strike a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring patient-centered care. By establishing clear criteria for responsible conceptual advancement, this paper seeks to guide authors, reviewers, and editors in critically evaluating emerging ideas before their integration into routine clinical practice.