RESUMO
Dental traumas in sports are common and have physical, social, psychological, and economic impacts. The aim of this study was to determine, through a systematic review, the prevalence of dental trauma in contact and non-contact sports. This review was submitted to PROSPERO (CRD42023421206). Included studies addressed the prevalence of dental trauma in young athletes and adults above 18 years, excluding reviews, editorials, symposiums, or those evaluating athletes under 18 years. A literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, LIVIVO, SPORTDiscus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (via EBSCO), and Lilacs and BBO, as well as gray literature. Bias risk was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist. Data were synthesized considering study characteristics, population, sport, and outcomes. R Statistics software was used for all meta-analyses. A total of 1707 articles were identified. After applying eligibility criteria, eight were selected. Three studies, not previously observed, were later added after reading four systematic reviews on a similar topic. Fourteen contact sports and five non-contact sports were analyzed. The prevalence of dental trauma was 11.38% in contact sports and 5.24% in non-contact sports. Regardless of the type of sport, athletes face risks of dental trauma, with contact sports showing higher prevalence. The use of mouthguards is essential across all contact and non-contact sports as a preventive measure.
RESUMO
The objective of this systematic review was to analyze the quality of the food frequency instruments/scales used in dentistry while considering their psychometric properties. The databases consulted were PubMed (August 7, 2020), Scopus (August 27, 2020), Web of Science (August 27, 2020), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (via EBSCO) (August 28, 2020), LILACS and BBO (August 25, 2020), gray literature: Proquest (October 1, 2020), Capes Theses Bank (October 1, 2020), Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (October 1, 2020), Google Scholar (October 2, 2020), and proceedings of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) (October 10, 2020). All databases were updated on December 12, 2022. Articles were initially selected by reading the 6,421 titles and 13 abstracts selected, followed by reading the 8 articles included for full text reading to confirm the eligibility criteria, with the aid of Rayyan software. Databases of the construction and/or validation of instruments/scales for assessing food consumption for use in dentistry (in clinical contexts and/or epidemiological studies), with or without assessment of their psychometric properties, were included. Review studies, letters to editors, and research protocols were excluded. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The extracted data were author, country, instrument language, sample, assessment instrument, instrument structure, type of food, instruments compared with the clinical condition, adaptation of an existing instrument, and psychometric properties evaluated. The selection, risk of bias analysis, and data extraction processes were performed by two independent evaluators. Seven studies were identified. The instruments available in the literature were in English, Japanese, Creole, and Malay. Only one study performed translation and cross-cultural validation of an instrument, whereas the others were construction studies. One study did not assess psychometric properties. Regarding the quality assessment and general classification of the studies by the COSMIN checklist, all were considered "inadequate," with reliability (test-retest) being the most validated psychometric property; only one study carried out the validation of all psychometric properties measured in COSMIN. Regarding the quality of the instruments presented, all the studies were classified as "inadequate" in the general assessment. Advances are needed in the validation process.