Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies:a cross-sectional study

Background: The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews. Material &amp; methods: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low. Results: Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. funding: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews. Conclusion: Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.</p

ASSESSMENT OF THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTING DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (dPROs) IN A SAMPLE OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS ON ROOT COVERAGE PROCEDURES

Objective: Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are important for understanding the impact of proposed therapies on patients’ oral health. The aims of the present study were to investigate the frequency of the reporting of dPROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of root coverage procedures and to assess associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of the dPROs. Methods: The PubMed database was searched for RCTs of root coverage procedures in March 16, 2022 and articles published up to March 2022 were included. Information on the types of outcomes and the characteristics of the studies/articles were extracted and reported as frequencies and percentages. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of dPROs. Results: The search initially identified 387 articles, and after applying the eligibility criteria, 135 articles reporting 135 RCTs were included. A combination of dPROs and non-dPROs was reported in 61.5% of the selected trials, while 37.8% of the trials reported only non-dPROs. Pain or discomfort was the most frequently reported dPRO (n = 58, 43% of the RCTs). More recently published RCTs reported more dPROs. The country of the first author (odds ratio [OR]: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.76-10.95; P <.01), protocol registration (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.83; P =.02), and RCT type (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17-0.83; P =.02) were significantly associated with the reporting level of the dPROs. Conclusions: Researchers in recent years seem to be paying more attention to the importance of dPROs. RCTs in which the first authors were from developed countries, registered trials, and RCTs with a parallel design were more likely to report dPROs than RCTs with first authors from developing countries, unregistered trials, and RCTs with a split-mouth design

The Impact of Orofacial Pain Conditions on Oral Health Related Quality of Life : A Systematic Review

Pain in the orofacial region is one of the most common reasons for patients to seek dental treatment. Oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) can be affected not only by pain, but also by other oral disorders. Four main dimensions, Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact, have been suggested to cover different areas of OHRQoL. The aim of this systematic review was to map the impact of orofacial pain conditions on the Orofacial Pain dimension of OHRQoL (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017064033). Studies were included if they reported Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) mean or median domain scores for patients with odontogenic pain, oral mucosal pain/Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS), third molar extractions or temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A search in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on June 8, 2017, updated January 14, 2019, combined with a hand search identified 2,104 articles. After screening of abstracts 1,607 articles were reviewed in full text and 36 articles were included that reported OHIP-data for 44 patient populations including 5,849 patients. Typical Orofacial Pain impact for all four conditions (odontogenic pain, oral mucosal pain/BMS, pain after third molar extractions and TMD) was between 2 and 3 on a 0-8 converted OHIP-scale with the highest reported impact for pain after 3rd molar extractions. This review provides standardized information about OHRQoL impact from four orofacial pain conditions as a model for the Orofacial Pain dimension. The results show moderate impact for the pain dimension of OHRQoL in patients with common orofacial pain conditions

Reasons for Tooth Removal in Adults: A Systematic Review

Objective: Most tooth extractions are performed for dental reasons, but there are also nondental and nonmedical reasons for extractions; these include psychological, financial, religious, and cultural reasons as well as simply granting a patient's request. This systematic review was performed to examine the proportion and range of indications associated with tooth removal in context of dental, nondental, and medical reasons. Methods: A search conducted using PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycINFO identified 6038 studies. Three studies (4396 extractions in total) could be included for the risk of bias assessment and qualitative data synthesis. Results: The reported indications for tooth extraction on dental and medical grounds included caries with the proportion of all extractions ranging from 36.0% to 55.3%, periodontitis from 24.8% to 38.1%, trauma from 0.8% to 4.4%, periapical disease from 7.3% to 19.1%, orthodontics from 2.5% to 7.2%, and other reasons from 4.5% to 9.2%. The proportion for patient requests ranged from 3.6% to 5.9%, but specific information regarding the actual reasons for extraction could not be determined. Conclusion: The results suggest that caries and periodontitis are the most common indications for tooth extraction and that studies to reliably estimate the incidence of nondental and nonmedical motivation for extraction are lacking. Given that the final decision on performing or refusing extractions, whether it be based on dental, nondental, or nonmedical reasons, largely rests with the dentist and oral surgeon, detailed guidelines are warranted

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Dental Caries with Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes:A Methodological Study

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015, until October 28, 2022, were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a predetermined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national levels was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2-6%) and 79% (95% CI: 74-84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR = 2.131; 95% CI: 1.092-4.158; p = 0.03), trial designs (nonparallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR = 0.395; 95% CI: 0.193-0.810; p = 0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR = 0.998; 95% CI: 0.996-0.999; p &lt; 0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.</p

Correction to: Early root migration after a mandibular third molar coronectomy

Originally, the article was published with an error in Figure 4 legend. The legend should read: Fig. 4 Measuring technique 1: The distance between the roots and the inferior alveolar canal (white lines). Point A: intersection between the long axis of the molar and the upper white line of the inferior alveolar canal; point B: intersection between the long axis of the molar (red lines) and the apices of the mesial and distal roots The original article has been corrected

Early root migration after a mandibular third molar coronectomy

Purpose: This prospective cohort study aimed to assess early root migration after a coronectomy of the mandibular third molar at 2 and 6 months after surgery. Methods: We included all patients treated with a coronectomy of an impacted mandibular third molar. The primary outcome measure was the extent of postoperative root migration after 2 and 6 months. Migration was measured as the distance between the root complex and a fixed point on the inferior alveolar canal. The secondary aim was to identify factors (age, impaction pattern, and patient sex) that affected the extent of root migration. Results: One hundred and sixty-five coronectomies were performed in 141 patients (96 females and 45 males; mean age 33.1 years, SD 16.0). The 2-month checkup was completed by 121 patients that received 141 coronectomies. The 6-month check-up was completed by 73 patients that received 80 coronectomies. The mean root migrations were 3.30 mm (SD 2.53 mm) at 2 months and 5.27 mm (SD 3.14 mm) at 6 months. In the 2–6-month interval, the mean root migration was 2.58 mm (SD 2.07 mm). The extents of migration were similar during the 0–2-month interval and the 2–6-month interval (p = 0.529). Younger age was associated with greater root migration, and females experienced significantly greater migrations than males (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Roots migrated more rapidly in the first two postoperative months, compared to the 2–6-month interval. Age was negatively correlated with the extent of root migration, and females showed significantly greater migrations than males

A network analysis of self-reported sleep bruxism in the Netherlands sleep registry: its associations with insomnia and several demographic, psychological, and life-style factors

Objectives: To investigate the association between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia and their potential risk factors (eg, depression and anxiety), and to construct a network model with all these factors. Methods: We recruited 2251 participants from the Netherlands Sleep Registry. All participants completed questionnaires on self-reported sleep bruxism, insomnia, depression, anxiety, smoking frequency, and alcohol and caffeine consumption. The associations between self-reported sleep bruxism and other variables were analyzed by univariate analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and network analysis. Results: Although univariate analysis showed that there was a positive association between sleep bruxism and insomnia (P < 0.001), this association disappeared in the multivariate logistic regression model (P = 0.258). However, multivariate logistic regression did show an association between self-reported sleep bruxism and anxiety (OR = 1.087, 95% CI 1.041–1.134). The network model showed that there was no direct link between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia. However, there was an indirect link between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia via anxiety. Conclusions: Although self-reported sleep bruxism has no direct association with insomnia, anxiety is a bridging factor between these variables

A network analysis of self-reported sleep bruxism in the Netherlands sleep registry: its associations with insomnia and several demographic, psychological, and life-style factors

Objectives: To investigate the association between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia and their potential risk factors (eg, depression and anxiety), and to construct a network model with all these factors. Methods: We recruited 2251 participants from the Netherlands Sleep Registry. All participants completed questionnaires on self-reported sleep bruxism, insomnia, depression, anxiety, smoking frequency, and alcohol and caffeine consumption. The associations between self-reported sleep bruxism and other variables were analyzed by univariate analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and network analysis. Results: Although univariate analysis showed that there was a positive association between sleep bruxism and insomnia (P < 0.001), this association disappeared in the multivariate logistic regression model (P = 0.258). However, multivariate logistic regression did show an association between self-reported sleep bruxism and anxiety (OR = 1.087, 95% CI 1.041–1.134). The network model showed that there was no direct link between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia. However, there was an indirect link between self-reported sleep bruxism and insomnia via anxiety. Conclusions: Although self-reported sleep bruxism has no direct association with insomnia, anxiety is a bridging factor between these variables

Maxillomandibular advancement for obstructive sleep apnea: a retrospective prognostic factor study for surgical response

Purpose: To identify potential predictors of surgical response to maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) from the most common clinically available data (patient-related, polysomnographic, cephalometric, and surgical variables). Methods: This was a retrospective study comprised of consecutive patients who underwent MMA for moderate to severe OSA. Relevant clinical, polysomnographic, cephalometric, and surgical variables were collected as independent variables (predictors). The association of the independent variables with a favorable surgical response to MMA was assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: In 100 patients (82% male; mean age 50.5 years), the mean apnea hypopnea index [AHI] was 53.1 events/h. The rate of favorable surgical response was 67%. Based on multivariate analysis, patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) had 0.140 times lower odds of a favorable response to MMA (OR: 0.140 [0.038, 0.513], P = 0.003). For each 1-unit increase in central apnea index (CAI) and superior posterior airway space (SPAS), there were 0.828 and 0.724 times lower odds to respond favorably to MMA (OR: 0.828 [0.687, 0.997], P = 0.047; and 0.724 [0.576, 0.910], P = 0.006), respectively. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the surgical outcome of MMA may be less favorable when patients with OSA have certain phenotypic characteristics: the presence of CVD, higher CAI and larger SPAS. If confirmed in future studies, these variables may guide patient selection for MMA