Still to ARRIVE at adequate reporting of orthodontic studies involving animal models.

BACKGROUND The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. MATERIALS AND METHOD An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. RESULTS Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). CONCLUSIONS The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models

The reporting of study limitations in randomized controlled trials published in the leading dental journals: Is it sufficient?

OBJECTIVES Adequate reporting of limitations is crucial to enable clinicians to accurately interpret the clinical trial findings. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to evaluate whether study limitations are reported in full-text articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the leading dental journals. Associations between the trial characteristics and the reporting of limitations were also explored. METHODS RCTs published between 1st January and 31st December in the years 2011, 2016 and 2021 were identified from the 12 high impact factor dental journals (general and specialty). RCT characteristics were extracted, and reporting of limitations was recorded for the selected studies. Descriptive statistics were calculated for trial and limitations related characteristics. Univariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to explore univariable associations between trial characteristics and reporting of limitations. RESULTS Two hundred and sixty-seven trials were included and analyzed. Most RCTs were published in 2021 (40.8%), had authors based in Europe (50.2%), did not have a statistician involved (88.8%) and assessed a procedure/method intervention type (40.5%). The reporting of trial limitations was generally sub-optimal. More recent trials and studies with a published protocol were associated with better reporting of limitations. The type of journal was a significant predictor for limitation reporting. CONCLUSIONS Within this study, the clear reporting of study limitations in the manuscripts of dental RCTs is sub-optimal and requires improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The reporting of limitations should not be viewed as a weakness of a trial but due diligence, so clinicians can fully interpret the impact of these limitations on both the validity and generalisability of the results

Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. RESULTS 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended

Does the quality of orthodontic studies influence their Altmetric Attention Score?

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether an association between study quality, other study characteristics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) existed in orthodontic studies. METHODS The Scopus database was searched to identify orthodontic studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Study characteristics, including study quality were extracted and entered into a pre-pilot data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated. On an exploratory basis, random forest and gradient boosting machine learning algorithms were used to examine the influence of article characteristics on AAS. RESULTS In total, 586 studies with an AAS were analyzed. Overall, the mean AAS of the samples was 5. Twitter was the most popular social media platform for publicizing studies, accounting for 53.7%. In terms of study quality, only 19.1% of the studies were rated as having a high level of quality, with 41.8% of the studies deemed moderate quality. The type of social media platform, number of citations, impact factor, and study type were among the most influential characteristics of AAS in both models. In contrast, study quality was one of the least influential characteristics on the AAS. CONCLUSIONS Social media platforms contributed the most to the AAS for orthodontic studies, whereas study quality had little impact on the AAS

Clinical communication in orthodontics: Any questions?

OBJECTIVE To measure patient-perceived standards of clinician communication and identify elements of deficient performance. Good communication can improve the quality of care, patient satisfaction and compliance with treatment. DESIGN Cross-sectional questionnaire service evaluation. SETTING Two university dental hospital orthodontic departments. PARTICIPANTS Any patients aged 10 years and over attending the orthodontic department for treatment or consultation were eligible for inclusion. Patients who required third-party translation services were excluded. METHODS Clinicians provided the modified 15-item Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to up to five patients in a clinical session. A front sheet for clinician characteristics was used and anonymised with a unique identifier. Univariable logistic GEE models examined associations among responses and clinician characteristics. RESULTS There were 55 clinicians with 204 patient responses. The overall percentage of '5=excellent' ratings was 88% (SD 0.16). The lowest scoring item was 'encouraged me to ask questions' (55.8%). Based on clinician characteristics, there were lower odds of an excellent response for certain CAT items. There were higher odds of an excellent response if English was not the clinician's first language (1.05; 95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.09; P=0.03). CONCLUSION There is a high standard of patient-clinician communication in the hospital orthodontic setting. Key areas of communication that require attention include encouraging patients to ask questions, talking in terms they can understand, recognising their main concerns and involving them in the decision-making process. The results of this study can be used to inform communication skills training and be replicated in similar dental settings (primary and secondary care) as part of quality improvement

Reporting of flow diagrams in randomised controlled trials published in periodontology and implantology: a survey.

BACKGROUND Item 13 of the CONSORT guidelines recommends documentation of the participant flow in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using a diagram. In the medical literature, the reporting of the flow of participants in RCTs has been assessed to be inadequate. The quality of reporting flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of flow diagrams in RCTs published in periodontology and implantology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS RCTs published between 15th January 2018 and 15th January 2022 in twelve high-ranked periodontology and implantology journals were identified. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. The flow diagram included in each RCT was assessed for completeness of reporting in relation to published criteria and the CONSORT flow diagram template. RESULTS From the 544 eligible articles, 85% were single-centre, 82% of parallel-group design and 79% investigated surgical interventions. Three-hundred and fifteen (58%) articles were published in CONSORT endorsing journals. A flow diagram was reported in 317 (58%) trials and reporting was more common in periodontology (73.1%). Overall, 56% of publications with a flow diagram reported a complete CONSORT flow diagram, while in 44% of flow diagrams, at least one point from the CONSORT reporting template was missing. Reasons for loss to follow-up (69.7%) and exclusions from the RCT analysis (86.4%) were poorly reported. CONCLUSION The reporting of flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology RCTs was sub-optimal. Greater awareness of the importance of fully completing the participant CONSORT flow diagram is required

Should we recommend early overjet reduction to prevent dental trauma

There is an association between increased overjet and risk of trauma to the maxillary incisor teeth in children and adolescents. It would therefore seem sensible to recommend overjet reduction as early as possible to help reduce this risk. However, orthodontic outcomes are essentially the same whether you start treatment in the early or late mixed dentition, while early treatment carries a heavier burden on compliance - taking longer and involving more appointments. This article explores the complex association between early overjet reduction and dental trauma in the context of current best evidence. Careful case selection is advised when justifying early intervention for increased overjet based on reducing trauma risk

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTA

Do we get better outcomes from early treatment of Class III discrepancies

Early orthodontic treatment in the mixed dentition aims to simplify definitive treatment in the permanent dentition. In Class III cases, this can be an effective strategy for the management of a local anterior crossbite, using either a removable or simple fixed appliance. For more significant Class III malocclusions, the decision to intervene early is a more difficult one. Traditionally, orthodontists in the UK have been reluctant to embark on early treatment in the presence of a skeletal Class III relationship but there is now some evidence that in selected cases, the use of protraction headgear can be a successful method of avoiding the need for later surgery. Although growth prediction in Class III cases is notoriously difficult, in the presence of maxillary retrognathia, the general dental practitioner should consider early referral of Class III cases to a specialist orthodontist