Scoping reviews in orthodontics: are they justified?

Background: Scoping Reviews (ScRs) have emerged in the orthodontic literature as a new methodological perspective to collate and summarize scientific evidence. The aim of the present study was to identify and record the proportion of Scoping Reviews in orthodontics that have been clearly and adequately justified, based on the methodological framework of such types of reviews. Associations with a number of publication characteristics were also sought. Three major databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, as well as 11 specialty orthodontic journals were electronically sought from inception until August 1, 2022, for ScRs. The primary outcome pertained to whether the published reports of the ScRs included an appropriate justification and explanation for the selection of this kind of knowledge synthesis methodology. Potential association with year, journal, continent of authorship, number of authors, methodologist involvement, appropriate reporting guidelines and registration practices followed were explored. Results: A total of 40 ScRs were eligible for inclusion, with the majority not being adequately justified (22/40; 55.0%). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onward (32/40; 80.0%). The regression model did not reveal any significant association between justification of ScRs and a number of publication characteristics (p > 0.05 at all levels). Conclusions: Less than half of the included ScRs were adequately justified in terms of selection of the appropriate synthesis methodology. Awareness should be raised in the scientific community regarding the correctness of the use of this newly emerging type of study in orthodontics, to safeguard against any trace of research waste. Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Knowledge synthesis; Orthodontics; PRISMA ScR; Scoping Review

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020

Summary Aim To assess the prevalence of and identify factors associated with SPIN in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses. Materials and methods Electronic search was performed within the contents of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify meta-analyses of studies involving humans, from 1 January 2000 until 31 August 2020. Inclusion of SPIN in the abstract of meta-analyses, defined as misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and inappropriate extrapolation of the findings, was documented. Extent of SPIN and associations with journal and year of publication, type of study, number of authors, continent of authorship, methodologist involvement, funding, and significance of the primary outcome were investigated. Results One hundred and nine meta-analyses were identified, with the highest proportion being published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO: 31/109; 28.4%). Inclusion of SPIN, in at least one domain, was recorded in nearly half (53/109; 48.6%) of the studies, of which 30 (56.6%) included 2 or more domains of SPIN. Meta-analyses of observational studies presented 1.66 times higher risk for including SPIN in their abstracts compared with interventional ones [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.14, 2.40; P = 0.007], after adjusting for a number of predictors. Studies with a large number of authors (≥6) presented 1.76 times higher risk of SPIN (≥6 versus 1–3: 95% CIs: 1.04, 2.97; Wald test, P = 0.021), conditional on the pre-defined predictors. Conclusions Flaws in the reporting and interpretation of the findings of abstracts of meta-analyses, as framed by inclusion of SPIN are persistent in orthodontic research, being more prevalent in meta-analyses of observational studies. Consistent, multidirectional efforts should be endorsed to improve the quality of the disseminated research findings

Induced Ankylosis of a Primary Molar for Skeletal Anchorage in the Mandible as Alternative to Mini-Implants

Background Mesial protraction of mandibular posterior teeth requires increased anchorage to avoid undesired tooth movements. Orthodontic mini-implants have become a popular and successful way to increase skeletal anchorage in such cases. However, mini-implants may cause injury to adjacent teeth or anatomical structures and may lead to tissue inflammation. Induced ankylosed primary teeth have been used in the past as abutments for the protraction of the maxilla in cases of maxillary retrognathism. However, this technique has not been described in the literature for the protraction of mandibular molars. The aim of this paper is to present, through a case report, an alternative to mini-implant devices to maximize anchorage in the mandible by inducing ankylosis on a primary molar. Findings A 13-year-old female with class II right malocclusion, deep bite, and congenitally missing right second premolars was referred for orthodontic treatment. Treatment plan involved removal of the primary teeth and mesial protraction of the posterior. In the mandible, ankylosis was induced on the retained primary second molar by extraction, bisection, replantation of the mesial part after endodontic treatment, and bonding of a rigid splint. Ankylosis was diagnosed after 10 weeks and a closing T-loop sectional wire was inserted to move the permanent first molar mesially. At 6 months, the remaining space was closed using elastic chain on a rectangular stainless steel wire with tip-back bends, supported by class II elastics. Conclusions Induced ankylosis of primary teeth can be an alternative to orthodontic mini-implants in selected cases, with minimal risks and maximum biocompatibility

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvemen

Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis?

In orthodontics, multiple site observations within patients or multiple observations collected at consecutive time points are often encountered. Clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared to individual randomized trials and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this study to assess to what degree clustering effects are considered during design and data analysis in the three major orthodontic journals. The contents of the most recent 24 issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from December 2010 backwards were hand searched. Articles with clustering effects and whether the authors accounted for clustering effects were identified. Additionally, information was collected on: involvement of a statistician, single or multicenter study, number of authors in the publication, geographical area, and statistical significance. From the 1584 articles, after exclusions, 1062 were assessed for clustering effects from which 250 (23.5 per cent) were considered to have clustering effects in the design (kappa = 0.92, 95 per cent CI: 0.67-0.99 for inter rater agreement). From the studies with clustering effects only, 63 (25.20 per cent) had indicated accounting for clustering effects. There was evidence that the studies published in the AO have higher odds of accounting for clustering effects [AO versus AJODO: odds ratio (OR) = 2.17, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.43, P = 0.03; EJO versus AJODO: OR = 1.90, 95 per cent CI: 0.84-4.24, non-significant; and EJO versus AO: OR = 1.15, 95 per cent CI: 0.57-2.33, non-significant). The results of this study indicate that only about a quarter of the studies with clustering effects account for this in statistical data analysi

Long-term stability after high-pull headgear combined with fixed appliances: A retrospective cohort study of growing class II patients

BACKGROUND High-pull headgear with fixed appliances is a common therapeutic plan in class II growing individuals, especially in those with a tendency to hyperdivergence. The stability of this approach has not been adequately assessed in the long-term. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess that long-term stability by means of lateral cephalograms. Seventy-four consecutive patients were included and examined at three time-points: pre-treatment (T1), end of treatment (T2), and at least five years post-treatment (T3). RESULTS The average initial age of the sample was 9.3 years (standard deviation, SD: 1.6). At T1, the mean ANB was 5.1 degrees (SD: 1.6), the mean SN-PP 5.6 (SD: 3.0) and the mean MP-PP 28.7 degrees (SD: 4.0). The median follow-up time was 8.6 years with an interquartile range of 2.7. A statistically significant, but of small magnitude increase in the SNA angle was noted at T3 compared to T2 after adjusting for the pre-treatment SNA value (mean difference (MD): 0.75; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.15; P<0.001). The inclination of the palatal plane appeared stable in the post-treatment period, while the MP-PP angle showed scarce evidence of decrease during the post-treatment period after adjusting for sex, pre-treatment SNA and SN-PP angles (MD: -2.29; 95% CI: -2.85, -1.74; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The sagittal position of the maxilla and the inclination of the palatal plane appeared to be stable after treatment with high-pull headgear and fixed appliances in the long-term. Continuous mandibular growth, both sagittaly and vertically, contributed to the stability of class II correction

Changes in the Pulp Tissue Complex Induced by Orthodontic Forces: Is There a Need for Concern? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs and Prospective Clinical Trials

PURPOSE To identify and assess any changes in the pulp tissue complex following orthodontic force application. MATERIALS AND METHODS Published and unpublished literature was searched in seven databases until 9 August 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective trials (nR-PCT). Representative key words included 'pulp response', 'pulp tissue', 'orthodontic force', and 'tooth movement'. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty of evidence assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses with respective confidence intervals (95%CIs) were conducted where applicable. RESULTS A total of 363 records were screened, a final number of 24 articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis, while 8 of those contributed to meta-analyses. There was evidence that pulpal blood flow (PBF) decreased after 3 weeks of tooth movement compared to no force application (4 studies, mean difference: -1.68; 95% CI: -3.21, -0.15; p = 0.03). However, this was not the case after 6 months of treatment (p = 0.68). A rise in the activity of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was detected after 7 days of treatment, but combining 2 studies, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). Other outcomes were assessed through single studies. Risk of bias was within the range of 'some concerns/moderate to high/critical overall', while certainty of evidence was low to very low according to GRADE. CONCLUSIONS As a short-term effect, PBF decreased upon initiation of orthodontic force application, while enzymatic and peptide activity within the pulp was transiently affected. Further long-term evidence of improved quality and certainty is needed

Publication bias in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. What factors affect statistical significance of outcomes?

OBJECTIVES To record the proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting significant (versus non- significant) primary outcomes, published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. METHODS We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021 in the two journals with the highest impact factors (Clarivate Analytics, 2020) from each of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/ Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Paediatric Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of significant/ non- significant findings reported for the primary outcomes under study, while a range of characteristics such as: journal, year of publication, impact factor, funding, registration and others, were tested for associations. RESULTS A total of 474 RCTs were identified and included, with the majority reporting statistically significant outcomes (321/474; 67.7%). The multivariable model revealed significant effects of predictors related to specialty domain (p = 0.01), continent (p = 0.003) and registration (p = 0.004). Compared to Periodontology, RCTs published in Endodontics (OR= 0.40; 95%CIs: 0.22, 0.76) and Orthodontics (OR= 0.41; 95%CIs: 0.23, 0.74) were less likely to present statistically significant effects. There was strong evidence that registered trials presented lower odds of reporting statistically significant findings (OR= 0.52; 95%CIs: 0.34, 0.81). CONCLUSIONS The entirety of dentistry domains demonstrated preferential publication practices of outcomes considered as "successful" and statistically significant, with domains such as Orthodontics and Endodontics being more balanced. Trial non- registration is still prevalent and associated with reporting of statistically significant effects. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The findings of this empirical report bring attention to the interpretation of Systematic Reviews (SRs) conclusions. These largely depend on the availability and nature of outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on a topic, which may impact on the synthesized estimate of a pooled effect and its direction

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

AIM: To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guideline

The Effect of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Evaluation on Treatment Planning after Endodontic Instrument Fracture

Intracanal instrument fracture is a procedural iatrogenic event during endodontic treatment that may affect treatment planning and eventually treatment outcome. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has offered several advantages, especially in endodontic cases in which information from conventional periapical radiograph may not be adequate to allow a precise treatment planning decision and a subsequent appropriate management of the cases. The present study was firstly conducted to assess the effect of CBCT evaluation on the decision-making process after instrument fracture; secondly, to introduce a new clinical approach in cases with fractured instruments located in the mesial roots of mandibular and maxillary molars. The study design was observational. The sample comprised all cases of mandibular and maxillary molars where an instrument fracture had occurred in the mesial roots. Two qualified (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece) and experienced (more than fifteen years of daily practicing) endodontists evaluated all the cases. The initial treatment plan made by evaluating periapical radiographs of each case was compared to the final plan set after CBCT evaluation. A marginal homogeneity test for paired data was conducted to test the concordance of treatment planning with periapical radiographs versus CBCT. Multivariable logistic regression was structured to identify predictors of modification in treatment planning following CBCT assessment, and to record estimators for decision to remove, bypass or retain the fragment. The level of statistical significance was pre-specified at p &lt; 0.05. Of a total 52 cases evaluated, change in treatment planning with conventional periapical radiograph as a reference, following evaluation of CBCT, was observed in more than half of the teeth. The difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.001). Apical location of the fragment was more likely to induce a perceived change in treatment planning after CBCT evaluation (p &lt; 0.01). Canal merging induced 95% lower odds (p = 0.01) for taking a decision to remove or bypass, revealing that retaining the fragment was by far a more likely decision. A significant impact of CBCT preoperative evaluation on treatment planning for the management of such cases was demonstrated. Apical location of the fragment and canal merging seem to influence the decision-making process. Keywords: cone-beam computed tomography; decision making; instrument fracture; treatment plannin