Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reporting of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach in systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in pediatric dentistry that reported the certainty of the evidence through the GRADE approach. Paired independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. The certainty of the evidence was extracted for each outcome. A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Around 28% of pediatric dentistry reviews of interventions used the GRADE approach (n = 24). Twenty reviews reported 112 evidence outcomes from RCTs and 13 from NRSIs using GRADE evidence profile tables. The methodological quality was high (16.7%), moderate (12.5%), low (37.5%), and critically low (33.3%), fulfilling the majority of the AMSTAR 2 criteria. The certainty of the evidence for outcomes generated from RCTs and NRSIs was very low (40.2% and 84.6%), low (33.1% and 7.7%), moderate (17.8% and 7.7%), and high (9.8% and 0.0%). The main reasons to downgrade the certainty were due to (for RCTs and NRSIs, respectively): risk of bias (68.8% and 84.6%), imprecision (67.8% and 100.0%), inconsistency (18.8% and 23.1%), indirectness (17.8% and 0.0%), and publication bias (7.1% and 0.0%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of systematic reviews assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach was considered small, considering the total initial number of published pediatric dentistry reviews of intervention. The certainty of the evidence was mainly very low and low, and the main problems for downgrading the certainty of evidence were due to risk of bias and imprecision. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database #CRD42022365443.

Ankyloglossia and malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ankyloglossia is a congenital alteration that affects the tongue's mobility, influencing craniofacial development; however, its association with malocclusion is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between ankyloglossia and malocclusion in patients. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies that investigated the association between malocclusion and the presence of ankyloglossia in any age group, used any assessment tool to diagnose ankyloglossia, and considered all types of malocclusion. The authors conducted searches in 8 electronic databases through July 1, 2022. They used Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools to assess the methodological quality and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Eleven studies (5 cross-sectional, 6 case-control) included 2,904 patients and over 13 occlusal alterations. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low through very low. Patients with Angle Class III malocclusion had similar or more inserted lingual frenula than patients with Class I malocclusion (standard mean difference, 0.37; 95% CI, -0.50 to 1.25) and Class II malocclusion (standard mean difference, 0.55; 95% CI, -0.52 to 1.63). Patients with Class III malocclusion had clinically significant increased mouth opening reduction compared with patients with Class I malocclusion (mean difference, 6.67; 95% CI, 4.01 to 9.33) and Class II malocclusion (mean difference, 5.04; 95% CI, 2.35 to 7.72) patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is uncertain evidence that ankyloglossia may be associated with the development of occlusal alterations. Ankyloglossia did not influence the Angle classification. Clinicians should closely follow children with ankyloglossia to evaluate whether this condition interferes with the occlusion. Future research should prospectively follow up on the long-term association between ankyloglossia and malocclusion. The protocol was registered a priori in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021248034). No amendments were deemed necessary after the registration of the protocol. Some subgroup analyses planned a priori were not possible, such as the severity of ankyloglossia, sex, and age, due to the lack of studies reporting data for these subgroups.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Orthodontic Interventions: Methodological Study

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) of interventional studies in orthodontics and assess how the certainty of the evidence is reported using the GRADE approach. Material and Methods: Six electronic databases were searched, followed by a hand search of the reference lists of eligible studies (PROSPERO #CRD42020180852). The required study design was randomized and nonrandomized studies of interventions published between January 2019 and May 2020. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool was used for the quality appraisal of the included SRs. Paired reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality. Results: The study included 46 SRs; 19.5% had moderate to high methodological quality, and the remaining had low to critically low methodological quality. Fifty-four percent of the reviews assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, and 34.8% followed all GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Most reviews had a good judgment of the AMSTAR2 items, although some critical items contributed to decreased overall quality. Half of the reviews used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence, and this approach should be included in future systematic reviews of interventions.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

Background: Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Material and Methods: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Results: One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal. Conclusions: Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed. Key words:Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.

Prevalence of ankyloglossia according to different assessment tools: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of ankyloglossia may vary depending on the assessment tool. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of ankyloglossia in distinct age groups according to different assessment tools. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Nine electronic databases were searched from inception through November 2021 without restrictions of language or year of publication. Paired independent reviewers selected cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting the diagnosis of ankyloglossia, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. The number of patients with ankyloglossia and the sample were extracted to calculate the overall prevalence of ankyloglossia and 95% CI. The authors calculated the prevalence of ankyloglossia per assessment tool, age group, and sex. They assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were included. Seven different diagnostic tools were used. The overall prevalence of ankyloglossia was 5% (95% CI, 4.0% to 5.0%) and ranged from 2% (using an unspecific tool) to 20% (Coryllos classification). The prevalence per age group was higher in infants (7%). The prevalence ratio was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.54) for boys, with very low certainty of evidence. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The prevalence of ankyloglossia is higher among infants and differs depending on the assessment tool used for the diagnosis. It is uncertain whether boys are more affected by ankyloglossia than girls.