The level of evidence in prosthodontics in relation to author's characteristics: An analysis of three leading prosthodontics journals.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the level of evidence (LOE) characteristics and associated factors that change over time in three leading prosthodontics journals. Materials and methods: Articles published in The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD), International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP), and Journal of Prosthodontics (JP) in 2013 and 2020 were reviewed by eight independent reviewers. After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, the number of authors, the corresponding author's educational degree, corresponding author's origin in each clinical research article were recorded. The included articles were rated by reviewers according to the level of evidence criteria and proposed level of evidence-associated factors. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and binary logistic regression analysis were performed to investigate dependent variables and potentially associated factors. All independent variables with a significant effect were analyzed by using a multivariable test. The entry and exit alpha level were set at αE = 0.15. The statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. Results: A total of 439 articles from 3 selected journals for the years studied met the inclusion criteria. The percentages of level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 articles were 2.7 %, 11.4 %, 9.6 %, 13.4 % and 62.9 %, respectively. Univariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.005), the corresponding author's educational degree (P = 0.022), and the corresponding author's geographic origin (P = 0.042). Multivariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.002), and the corresponding author's geographic origin (P = 0.014). Conclusions: The number of authors, CA degree, and CA origin had a significant association with the LOE of included prosthodontic studies. Although there was an increase in the number of publications from 2013 to 2020, the level of evidence trend shows no improvement over the years.

Level of evidence and characteristics of clinical studies published in leading prosthodontics journals.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Data on the level of evidence and the characteristics of studies published in peer-reviewed prosthodontic journals are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) scores of studies published in 3 leading peer-reviewed prosthodontic journals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical studies published in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD), the Journal of Prosthodontics (JP), and the International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP) in 2013 and 2020 were included in the analysis. Abstracts, letters to the editor, book reviews, and animal and laboratory studies were excluded from the investigation. For each study, design, type and LOE scores (Levels 1 to 5), publication year, impact factor (IF) of the journals, geographic origins of the first and corresponding authors, and funding status were recorded. Level 1 and Level 2 were defined as high evidence (HE), and Level 3, Level 4, and Level 5 were defined as low evidence (LE). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed (α=.05). RESULTS: Among the 439 studies included in the analysis, the proportion of HE and LE studies was 14.1% and 85.9%, respectively. According to univariate and multivariate analysis results, year of publication (P=.010 and P=.029), geographic origin of the corresponding author (P<.001), and funding status (P<.001 and P=.002) were significantly associated with the LOE of a study. However, the journal IF was not associated with LOE (P=.328). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of HE studies in 3 leading prosthodontic journals has increased over time, the total number was still limited compared with LE studies. A further improvement in the overall LOE of clinical studies in prosthodontics is needed.

Revisiting the Removable Partial Denture.

The partial edentulous population is increasing because of an increasing aging population, increased life expectancy, and individuals retaining more teeth at an older age. Therefore, the need for fixed and removable partial denture (RPD) therapy will remain high and will continue into the future. RPDs provide minimally invasive, cost-effective, timely care, and are preferred to fixed dental prostheses using teeth or implant therapy in many clinical scenarios. This article discusses RPD classification systems to review basic concepts and special framework design considerations, and explores advancements in the field such as implant-assisted RPD, CAD/CAM RPD, and new polymer framework materials.

Micro-Computed Tomography of Tooth Volume Changes Following Post Removal.

PURPOSE: To measure tooth volume change before and after post removal using micro-CT and to compare the difference among various combinations of prefabricated post and cement systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight extracted maxillary anterior teeth and mandibular canines were sectioned 13 mm from the apex. Root canals were properly instrumented. Preparations were filled with gutta percha using lateral condensation. Post space was prepared with a touch and heat device, leaving 5 mm of gutta percha from the apex. Specimens were scanned with micro-CT to establish objective baseline volume and divided into two groups of post systems: stainless steel (SS) ParaPost and glass-fiber reinforced composite (FRC) post. Half the posts for each group were cemented with Ketac Cem radiopaque glass-ionomer cement, and the other half with SpeedCEM dual-curing resin cement. The posts and residual cement were removed by the same operator, using the ultrasonic vibration technique under an endodontic operating microscope. The remaining tooth root structure was scanned again using micro-CT with volume reported (mm3 ). The statistical difference between the combination of posts and cements was measured using the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test (α = 0.001). The independent variables were evaluated separately using post hoc Tukey examination to determine which groups resulted in a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: There was a statistical difference of tooth root volume change among the groups. Post hoc exam revealed a statistically significant difference in tooth root volume change between group 1 (SS + GI) and the other groups (α = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Compared to other post and cement combinations, serrated parallel-sided SS posts cemented with GI cement had the most tooth root structure loss upon post removal using the ultrasonic vibration technique.