Temporomandibular disorders among Ehlers-Danlos syndromes: a narrative review.

This narrative review aims to demonstrate and summarize the complex relationship between Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) by reviewing the results of observational studies and case reports. EDS are a set of hereditary connective tissue disorders, where generalized joint hypermobility (GJH), especially in the hypermobile subtype (hEDS), is a key symptom. Mutations have been identified in genes that impact the production or assembly of collagen for all subtypes except hEDS. While the correlation between GJH and TMD has been analysed in various studies, fewer studies have examined TMD in patients with EDS, with most showing an increased prevalence of TMD. In case-control studies, an elevated prevalence of myalgia, arthralgia and disc-related disorders was found in individuals with EDS. Various therapeutic interventions have been reported within the literature in the form of case reports and observational studies, but there are no long-term clinical trials with results on the efficacy of different therapeutic approaches to date. This review demonstrates the high prevalence of different TMDs in different subtypes of EDS, but also shows that little is known about the success of treatment thus far. Further clinical research is necessary to provide adequate guidance on targeted treatment.

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 & 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.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials related to implant dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of scientific articles should be accurate and detailed in summarizing the information in the full-text because they are the first article section the reader examines. This study assessed the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) abstracts related to implant dentistry and examined associations between reporting quality and study characteristics. METHODS: On the 17th of January 2021, we searched the PubMed database for abstracts of RCTs published in high-ranked periodontology and implant dentistry journals from 2016 to 2021. For each abstract, we assessed if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist items were reported completely, partially, or not reported. An Overall CONSORT Score (OCS) and relative score (OCS%) were calculated as a proxy to checklist adherance. Linear regression models were fitted to analyze associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. RESULTS: Four-hundred and thirty four of the 678 retrieved abstracts were eligible for inclusion. The mean OCS and OCS% were 6,23 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.56) or 41.5% (SD = 10.4), respectively. Items most frequently reported included the title (n = 434; 100%), intended intervention (n = 425; 98%) and conclusions (n = 430; 99%). Participant allocation, blinding, and trial registration were rarely completely reported with frequencies of 2%, 3% and 4%, respectively. We found that number of authors, continent, type of RCT, number of centers, report of ethical approval, funding, structure and length of the abstract were associated with better abstract reporting. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of abstracts in RCTs related to implant dentistry is suboptimal. Journals should start to incorporate and endorse the use of the CONSORT-A guidelines in their instructions to authors to enhance reporting quality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.