Data sharing and transparency indicators in published RCTs in Oral Health between 2017 and 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To record the proportion of data sharing reporting in terms of primary data and/or statistical code of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. Transparency indicators such as registration or funding statements were assessed. METHODS: We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2023 in journals of high impact of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting their intent to share or openly shared primary data and we tested for associations with potential predictors. Funding, registration, and statistical code/script sharing practices were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 752 RCTs were included, of which only 119 (15.8%) either openly provided their data or included a statement of intention to share upon request. Only one study openly provided the statistical code underlying the analysis used. RCTs in periodontology more frequently included statements about positive intent to share (57/210;27.1%), followed by Orthodontics (35/157;22.3%). Significant effects of year, dentistry domain and continent of authorship on data sharing practices were identified (p < 0.001 in all cases). There was evidence that registered RCTs had 2.04 times higher odds for intention to share data (95%confidence interval: 1.06, 3.92;p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in oral health RCTs, empirical evidence suggested very low prevalence of positive data sharing practices. Enhancing transparency is pivotal in promoting reproducibility and credibility of research findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this empirical report bring attention to key transparency indicators in randomized controlled trials. These largely impact on the credibility and reproducibility of the evidence base for clinical decision making.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Surface alterations and compound release from aligner attachments in vitro.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the alterations in morphology, roughness, and composition of the surfaces of a conventional and a flowable composite attachment engaged with aligners, and to evaluate the release of resin monomers and their derivatives in an aqueous environment. METHODS: Zirconia tooth-arch frames (n = 20) and corresponding thermoformed PET-G aligners with bonded attachments comprising two composite materials (universal-C and flowable-F) were fabricated. The morphological features (stereomicroscopy), roughness (optical profilometry), and surface composition (ATR-FTIR) of the attachments were examined before and after immersion in water. To simulate intraoral use, the aligners were removed and re-seated to the frames four times per day for a 7-day immersion period. After testing, the eluents were analyzed by LC-MS/MS targeting the compounds Bis-GMA, UDMA, 2-HEMA, TEGDMA and BPA and by LC-HRMS for suspect screening of the leached dental material compounds and their degradation products. RESULTS: After testing, abrasion-induced defects were found on attachment surfaces such as scratches, marginal cracks, loss of surface texturing, and fractures. The morphological changes and debonding rate were greater in F. Comparisons (before-after testing) revealed a significantly lower Sc roughness parameter in F. The surface composition of the aligners after testing showed minor changes from the control, with insignificant differences in the degree of C = C conversion, except for few cases with strong evidence of hydrolytic degradation. Targeted analysis results revealed a significant difference in the compounds released between Days 1 and 7 in both materials. Insignificant differences were found when C was compared with F in both timeframes. Several degradation products were detected on Day 7, with a strong reduction in the concentration of the targeted compounds. CONCLUSIONS: The use of aligners affects the surface characteristics and degradation rate of composite attachments in an aqueous environment, releasing monomers, and monomer hydrolysates within 1-week simulated use.

The minimal important difference in orthodontic treatment duration: a survey across adult patients.

BACKGROUND: The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration. METHODS: We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19-24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable.

OBJECTIVES: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observe intervention effect estimates when new data become available. METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same health-care question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ratio of odds ratio (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance. RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n = 29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78-0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.