Subjective and objective perception of orthodontic treatment need: a systematic review

The aim of this work was to investigate the published evidence on the comparison of self-perception and diagnosis of orthodontic treatment need. A search of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Scopus databases, and archives of two orthodontic journals was carried out from January 1966 to August 2011 by the two authors using Medical Subject Heading terms. Studies that investigated solely either self-perception of orthodontic need by laypersons or assessment of orthodontic need by professionals were excluded from the data analysis. The methodological soundness of each study and the aggregate level of evidence were evaluated according to predetermined criteria. Moderate level of evidence, the relatively highest grade, was assigned to 9.1 per cent of the 22 studies, finally included in the data analysis. The overall evidence level provided by the evaluated publications was rated as limited. However, the existing body of evidence indicated a highly variable association between self-perception of orthodontic treatment need and orthodontist's assessment. Future controlled studies with well-defined samples and common assessment methodology will clarify further the relationship between perception of treatment need by laypersons and orthodontists and enhance international comparison and development of health care strategie

“Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!”:A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

Background: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.Methods: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist’s inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher’s discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall’s list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell’s Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.Results: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.Conclusions: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.</p

Tracking trends of transgender health research online:are researchers and the public on the same page?

Altmetric Explorer was searched for the most popular online articles published in Pubmed-indexed journals. The 75 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were screened for article information (date, journal, access), authorship (number of authors, affiliation and origin of the corresponding author), and research (type, subject, funding). The reviewed articles displayed a mean AAS of 241.52, were broadcast 17.03 times by news agencies, posted on Twitter 101.47 times, downloaded by 67.21 Mendeley readers, and received 62.67 citations. There was intense online interest in the transgender health literature, mainly related to mental health and social well-being. Online visibility of transgender health articles was not significantly correlated with citation counts, implying that the public, likely including transgender persons and allies, may place emphasis on different health issues than scholars. Monitoring altmetrics and interactions on electronic media may help researchers conduct research that is more meaningful to transgender individuals, and to society in general

Maxillary first molar extraction in Class II malocclusion:Follow-up studies on treatment effects

This PhD research investigated treatment effects of extraction of one and two maxillary first molars in Class II subdivision and Class II/1 malocclusion cases respectively from a longer time perspective. Private practice records were scrutinized to evaluate aspects of a treatment technique combining maxillary first molar extraction(s) and Begg brackets; outcome stability, influence on the position of maxillary third molars, interference of adjacent anatomical structures in closing extraction spaces, and effectiveness of fixed retainers in preventing vertical movement of mandibular second molars without contacts with maxillary teeth. Based on our results, extraction of a maxillary first molar and orthodontics led to favourable and stable results regarding aesthetics and occlusion. In patients treated with one and two extractions, the position of maxillary third molars improved by 3 to 4 times more compared to nonextraction maxillary halves and subjects. When applying this technique, clinicians should be aware of the possible interference of a large maxillary sinus in achieving upright position of maxillary second molars, and the capacity of retention wires to inhibit displacement of mandibular posterior teeth lacking occlusal contacts. Overall, there is evidence that maxillary first molar extraction(s) followed by orthodontic treatment, when carried out properly, and in selected cases, may be rewarding in clinical terms, and therefore may be preferred instead of extraction of premolars

Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses

SUMMARYINTRODUCTION: Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success. LIMITATIONS: Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies. CONCLUSIONS: On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get publishe

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

SummaryIntroduction: As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. Materials and methods: A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. Results: One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. Conclusions: This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journal

How has the dental literature evolved over time?:Analyzing 20 years of journal self-citation rates and impact factors

Objective: As journal impact factors (IFs) can be artificially inflated by excessive journal self-citation practices, research quality evaluation based solely on IF ranking may be manipulated and, therefore, ethically challenged. This study aimed to analyze the longitudinal development of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and IFs in dental literature and to determine possible confounders.Methods: Twenty-eight journals with scope within general dentistry and (sub)specialties listed in 1997-2016 Journal of Citation Reports® were scrutinized. The following information was retrieved: publication year, total number of citations, number of self-citations, IF, corrected IF, and SCR.Results: Endodontic journals had the highest SCR (median = 35.3, IQR = 21.6-47.5), journals related to periodontics had the lowest (median = 14.7, IQR = 8.9-25.5). Periodontics had the highest IF (median = 2.1, IQR= 1.7-2.8) and general dentistry had the lowest (median = 0.9, IQR = 0.7-1.2). SCR significantly decreased over time (p < .0001) by 1 unit per year. Additionally, 1 unit increase in corrected IF resulted in 15.2 units decrease in SCR. IFs significantly increased 0.06 units per year (p < .000).Conclusions: Overall, favourable changes in citation metrics have been observed for dental journals during the 20-year observation period. SCR significantly decreased per observation year whereas IFs significantly increased, indicating a healthy publishing environment in the dental literature. SCR was regulated both by time and corrected IF