Infiltration, a new therapy for masking enamel white spots: a 19-month follow-up case series.

Enamel white spot lesions are frequent and can impact patients' quality of life. The most conservative treatment in such cases is microabrasion, a technique that presents some drawbacks. The proposed strategy is not based on the elimination of dysplastic enamel, but on masking the lesion by infiltrating the porous subsurface enamel with a hydrophobic resin that has a refraction index closer to that of sound enamel, after permeating the non-porous surface enamel through hydrochloric acid erosion. Erosion-infiltration approaches have been proposed to treat initial caries, but this report suggests extending it to two novel indications: fluorosis and traumatic hypo-mineralization lesions. Four cases were treated by erosion infiltration following the original protocol. They were followed up clinically at several intervals during a period of 19 months of clinical service. The clinical results, although not perfect, satisfied the patients entirely. Erosion infiltration could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive treatment in similar situations

Response to Letter to the Editor, “Clinical Trial Registration in Oral Health Journals”

We thank Saltaji, Flores-Mir, and Major for their comments regarding our article pertaining to clinical trial registration in oral health journals (Smaïl-Faugeron et al. 2015). The three authors concur with our primary findings and our call for improvements in the registration of trials, but they raised 2 points.Regarding the first point, because we focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it was logical for us to plan the assessment of the risk of selection bias, using the two relevant items of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). Previous studies showed that only 22 to 30% of RCTs in dental journals could be considered to be at low risk of selection bias. In fact, the quality of reporting was frequently insufficient for a judgment to be made, or the random sequence generation or the allocation concealment was indeed inadequate (Hurst 2011; Koletsi et al. 2012). We found similar results, since the risk of selection bias was unclear for 80% of the selected RCTs. Saltaji, Flores-Mir, and Major are correct to note that trial registration allows peer-reviewers and meta-analysts to assess publication and selective outcome reporting biases. We acknowledge that, for registered trials, we could have assessed the extent of selective reporting bias but it was not our objective in this study. However, it would be interesting to compare published articles with the registered trial record and thus to assess the risk of selective outcome reporting bias in oral health RCTs, as has been done in other medical fields (Mathieu et al. 2009; Dwan et al. 2013).Regarding the second point, we assessed the journal Web sites in December 2013, and, as discussed in our manuscript, this may not have reflected the author instructions at the time that articles selected in our study sample were submitted. It is a limitation to the comparison between journals according to editorial policies. The number of RCTs in the 5 journals requiring or recommending trial registration may be higher than that at the time they were submitted. However, it would have been impractical to document the dates of submission of the 150 selected RCTs in these 5 journals and to compare them to the specific date after which regulation for clinical trial registration was required by each of these journals. More importantly, this limitation does not affect our primary findings, with only 23% of RCTs registered overall. All oral health journals should require trial registration and include the reporting of a trial identification number in the author guidelines (Smaïl-Faugeron et al. 2015)

Clinical trial registration in oral health Journals

International audienceProspective registration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represents the best solution to reporting bias. The extent to which oral health journals have endorsed and complied with RCT registration is unknown. We identified journals publishing RCTs in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in the Journal Citation Reports. We classified journals into 3 groups: journals requiring or recommending trial registration, journals referring indirectly to registration, and journals providing no reference to registration. For the 5 journals with the highest 2012 impact factors in each group, we assessed whether RCTs with results published in 2013 had been registered. Of 78 journals examined, 32 (41%) required or recommended trial registration, 19 (24%) referred indirectly to registration, and 27 (35%) provided no reference to registration. We identified 317 RCTs with results published in the 15 selected journals in 2013. Overall, 73 (23%) were registered in a trial registry. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively and 32% did not report trial registration in the published article. The proportion of trials registered was not significantly associated with editorial policies: 29% with results in journals that required or recommended registration, 15% in those that referred indirectly to registration, and 21% in those providing no reference to registration ( P = 0.05). Less than one-quarter of RCTs with results published in a sample of oral health journals were registered with a public registry. Improvements are needed with respect to how journals inform and require their authors to register their trials

Erratum to: Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

International audienceSplit-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are popular in oral health research. Meta-analyses frequently include trials of both split-mouth and parallel-arm designs to derive combined intervention effects. However, carry-over effects may induce bias in split- mouth RCTs. We aimed to assess whether intervention effect estimates differ between split- mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same questions

Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

International audienceSplit-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are popular in oral health research. Meta-analyses frequently include trials of both split-mouth and parallel-arm designs to derive combined intervention effects. However, carry-over effects may induce bias in split- mouth RCTs. We aimed to assess whether intervention effect estimates differ between split- mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same questions

Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review

International audienceLarge tooth substance losses are frequent in posterior teeth because of primary caries or aging restorations. Inlays and onlays are often the minimal invasive solution in such cases, but the efficacy of the composite and ceramic materials used is unknown. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of composite and ceramic inlays or onlays

Les matériaux usinables en dentisterie restauratrice et en prothèse fixée - Guide pratique synthétique

National audienc