Mapping of Dental Journal Publishing in India - A Pilot Study on Epistemological Challenges in Southern Scholarly Publishing.

BACKGROUND: Epistemic injustice and the so-called "predators" or illegitimate publishers are the challenges of Southern scholarly publishing. Even though open access (OA) publishing is revolutionary in academic publishing, increased compensation from authors in the form of author processing charges (APCs) by commercial publishers has marginalized knowledge creation in the Global South. The purpose of this study was to map the nature and scope of dental journal publishing in India. METHODS: We searched databases like Scopus, WoS, DOAJ, and the UGC CARE list for dental journals published in India. RESULT: There are currently 35 active dental journals, which mostly belong to or are affiliated with non-profit organizations (26, 55.9%) or educational institutions (9, 25.8%). The publication of 25 journals has been outsourced to international commercial publishers, with most of these linked to non-profit organizations. About 39.8% of Indian dental journals are OA and almost half charge APCs. Around 60% of the Indian journals are indexed in Scopus, and slightly less than half (12) are included in the Web of Science (WoS). DISCUSSION: The monopoly of international commercial publishers and the presence of APCs are the real culprits of epistemic injustice in Indian dental journal publishing. Besides, the identification of regional legitimate publishers would help demarcate the term "predatory publishing". CONCLUSION: The post-colonial world witnessed an emergence in Southern scholarly publishing. However, the hegemony or neoliberal exploitation of international commercial publishers and the prolonged use of "predators" in scholarly debates marginalized the knowledge produced in the Global South.

Evaluating global research trends in special needs dentistry: A systematic bibliometrix analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Special needs dentistry (SND) is a vast and fragmented field of study. This comprehensive bibliometric analysis aimed to evaluate the scope of SND, including the existing knowledge base, distribution structure, quantitative relationships, and research trends. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on March 10, 2022, using the Web of Science Core Collection database, covering the period from 1985 to 2021, focusing on studies reporting on special needs populations in a dentally relevant context. Records were title-screened and analyzed for key bibliometric indicators. RESULTS: Among 48,374 articles, 13,869 underwent bibliometric analysis. Peak SND research occurred during 1985-1997. United States led in productivity, trailed by Brazil and Japan. University of Sao Paulo excelled in Brazil, University of Washington and University of North Carolina in the United States. The Journal of Dental Research was the most productive source of research and also had the highest number of citations, followed by Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Keyword analysis revealed that "elderly", "caries", and "epidemiology" were the most commonly used author keywords. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first bibliometric analysis of SND literature. It emphasizes the need for increased collaboration between institutions and authors. Furthermore, it suggests focusing on research input from non-dental disciplines and populations with rarer intellectual or developmental conditions.

Data Collection in Dental Research: A Practitioner's Guide.

Data collection is a fundamental process in any scientific investigation. This article outlines best practices for three general elements of the data-collection process: (1) determining the specific aim, (2) design, and (3) documentation. We discuss these elements in the style of a tutorial, using extended examples specific to dental research. Each section of the tutorial concludes with a bullet-point summary for ease of reference to the readers. The supplemental material for this article includes templates designed to assist dental researchers in initiating the data-collection process in their respective research efforts, and selected references are organized by topic. Although written for an audience of clinical scientists in dentistry, the principles outlined here could be generalized to other health science research contexts.

Publication Delay of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry: Findings, Implications, and Potential Solutions.

Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers often rely on the available scientific evidence to make strategic decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) occupy an influential position in the hierarchy of scientific evidence. The findings of wellconducted SRs may provide valuable information to answer specific research questions1,2 and identify existing gaps for future research.3 Therefore, it is of supreme importance that SRs are published promptly, reducing as much as possible the time elapsed between the last date of the search for primary studies and the actual publication date. A study published in 2014 assessed the publication delay of SRs in orthodontics, revealing that the median time interval from the last search to publication was more than 1 year (13.2 months).4 Delays in the publication of SRs or original research articles may depend on author-related factors (eg, timing of resubmission after receiving feedback from reviewers) or journal-related factors (eg, time taken to process a submission).5-7 Regardless of the reasons, clinical recommendations and translation of SR findings may be affected by publication delay. We assessed the extent of publication delay of systematic reviews in dentistry with the purpose of addressing its implications and presenting potential solutions.

Synthetic, non-person related panoramic radiographs created by generative adversarial networks in research, clinical, and teaching applications.

OBJECTIVES: Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) can produce synthetic images free from personal data. They hold significant value in medical research, where data protection is increasingly regulated. Panoramic radiographs (PRs) are a well-suited modality due to their significant level of standardization while simultaneously displaying a high degree of personally identifiable data. METHODS: We produced synthetic PRs (syPRs) out of real PRs (rePRs) using StyleGAN2-ADA by NVIDIA©. A survey was performed on 54 medical professionals and 33 dentistry students. They assessed 45 radiological images (20 rePRs, 20 syPRs, and 5 syPRcontrols) as real or synthetic and interpreted a single-image syPR according to the image quality (0-10) and 14 different items (agreement/disagreement). They also rated the importance for the profession (0-10). A follow-up was performed for test-retest reliability with >10 % of all participants. RESULTS: Overall, the sensitivity was 78.2 % and the specificity was 82.5 %. For professionals, the sensitivity was 79.9 % and the specificity was 82.3 %. For students, the sensitivity was 75.5 % and the specificity was 82.7 %. In the single syPR-interpretation image quality was rated at a median of 6 and 11 items were considered as agreement. The importance for the profession was rated at a median score of 7. The Test-retest reliability yielded a value of 0.23 (Cohen's kappa). CONCLUSIONS: The study marks a comprehensive testing to demonstrate that GANs can produce synthetic radiological images that even health professionals can sometimes not differentiate from real radiological images, thereby being genuinely considered authentic. This enables their utilization and/or modification free from personally identifiable information. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Synthetic images can be used for university teaching and patient education without relying on patient-related data. They can also be utilized to upscale existing training datasets to improve the accuracy of AI-based diagnostic systems. The study thereby supports clinical teaching as well as diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making.

Dental research related to COVID-19 in Brazil: research presented at the 38th SBPqO Meeting.

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the characteristics of coronavirus (COVID-19)-disease related dental research in Brazil presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Division of the International Association for Dental Research (SBPqO). A search was carried out in the proceedings of the meeting to retrieve all abstracts. Those containing the term "COVID-19" in titles, abstracts, or keywords, and/or those of which the scope approached a COVID-19-related topic were included. The variables extracted from abstracts were: presenter category, field of study, design, data collection method, population, affiliation, and authors' gender. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used, with a significance level of α = 0.05. The search retrieved 185 abstracts, 5 did not meet study eligibility criteria and were excluded. COVID-19-related research was presented by either aspiring/associate members (67.8%) or beginner members (32.2%). Data collection methods were predominantly digitally mediated (65%), followed by secondary data use (25%), and in-person data collection (7.2%). Irrespective of the role of authorship, there were a ratio of two female authors to each male. Among the last authors, the ratio was three females to each male. Female lead authors more frequently came from the Southeast region (71.8%; p = 0.470). There was an association between presenter category and study design (p = 0.012), clinical and epidemiological studies were more concentrated among experienced presenters. In conclusion, female dental researchers affiliated to southeastern institutions approached the topic of pandemic more frequently than male colleagues. The use of digital technology for data collection may have long-lasting impacts on the teaching and publication of dental research.

Research interest on dental sealant in dentistry based on the 100 most cited articles: bibliometric analysis.

The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles about dental sealants (DS) in dentistry. In September 2023, a search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC) database. The following information was extracted from each article: number and density of citations, year of publication, authorship, journal, impact factor, keywords, study design, theme, continent, country, and institution. The citations of the WoS-CC were compared with those of the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative networks. The number of citations ranged from 33 to 205. The articles were published between 1961 and 2016. Buonocore MG (7%) was the most prominent author among the most cited. The Journal of the American Dental Association was the most frequent journal (25%) and Journal of Dental Research (7.6) had the highest impact factor. Most studies had interventional (41%) and laboratory (31%) designs, mainly addressing DS effectiveness in the prevention and control of dental caries (86%). There was a predominance of publications from North America (46%) and the USA was the country with the highest number of articles (44%). The most frequent institutions were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and the University of Rochester (USA) (6% each). "Retention" was the most frequent keyword. In conclusion, the 100 most cited articles were mostly interventional and laboratory studies, addressing the retention and efficacy of DS. Most of the articles were concentrated in North America and Europe, demonstrating a little collaboration from other continents.

Harold C. Slavkin: A Transformative Leader of Our Times.

Harold (Hal) C. Slavkin, DDS, the 22nd president of the American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research (1993 to 1994), died on December 22, 2023. During a career that spanned almost 6 decades, Hal distinguished himself as an international authority on craniofacial biology and an advocate for oral health equity. He served as dean of the University of Southern California's dental school, founded the school's Center for Craniofacial Molecular Biology, created the nation's first PhD program in craniofacial biology, and served as the sixth director of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Hal's studies of the molecular and cellular underpinnings of craniofacial malformations prepared him to champion translational research later in his career, when his work with patient advocates revealed the importance of applying new discoveries to clinical practice. A visionary thinker, skilled administrator, progressive educator, compelling communicator, researcher, scholar, and mentor, Hal was known as a Renaissance leader. He rejoiced in fostering collaborative synergies among people and organizations. Throughout his life, family was his central grounding force. He and his wife, Lois, advanced a wide range of social and community initiatives and took great pride in their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. We remember Hal for his indelible spirit, unflappable enthusiasm for science, fierce advocacy for social justice, and infectious zest for life. Here, we outline his multidimensional accomplishments through the lenses of academia, government, and nonprofit organizations. Although it is with heavy hearts that we bid goodbye to this remarkable man, our spirits are lightened by the many gifts he left behind.

Challenges in conducting clinical research in primary care dentistry.

The integration of dentistry into primary health care is crucial for promoting patient well-being. However, clinical studies in dentistry face challenges, including issues with study design, transparency, and relevance to primary care. Clinical trials in dentistry often focus on specific issues with strict eligibility criteria, limiting the generalizability of findings. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) face challenges in reflecting real-world conditions and using clinically relevant outcomes. The need for more pragmatic approaches and the inclusion of clinically relevant outcomes (CROs) is discussed, such as tooth loss or implant success. Solutions proposed include well-controlled observational studies, optimized data collection tools, and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for predictive modelling, computer-aided diagnostics and automated diagnosis. In this position paper advocates for more efficient trials with a focus on patient-centred outcomes, as well as the adoption of pragmatic study designs reflecting real-world conditions. Collaborative research networks, increased funding, enhanced data retrieval, and open science practices are also recommended. Technology, including intraoral scanners and AI, is highlighted for improving efficiency in dental research. AI is seen as a key tool for participant recruitment, predictive modelling, and outcome evaluation. However, ethical considerations and ongoing validation are emphasized to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of AI-driven solutions in dental research. In conclusion, the efficient conduct of clinical research in primary care dentistry requires a comprehensive approach, including changes in study design, data collection, and analytical methods. The integration of AI is seen as pivotal in achieving these objectives in a meaningful and efficient way.

Barriers to research among residents in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Research is an integral part of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residency training. This study aimed to identify the current barriers perceived by OMS residents toward conducting research during training. METHODS: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted. The survey was distributed to 670 OMS residents across the United States in 2021 and consisted of questions regarding demographics, residency program requirements and resources, and perceived barriers to research. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and post hoc Dunn's test with a statistical significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS: The response rate was 24.2%. Most participants' programs had a minimum research requirement to complete a residency (80%). The top three reported barriers to completing research were lack of time (84%), limited access to research mentors or supervisors (37%), and lack of access to biostatistical support (31%). Factors associated with these barriers included the lack of a research director, supervisor, mentor, assistant, or statistician. There was no significant difference between residents in programs with protected research time versus those without. CONCLUSIONS: OMS residents generally viewed research experience during residency as beneficial but reported important barriers, most notably: insufficient time. Although most OMS training programs in the US require research for completion, many do not provide adequate time to facilitate this process. Compared with literature from over a decade ago, it appears little progress has been made to remedy similar barriers to research. Addressing this deficiency may increase the quantity and quality of research, furthering the profession.

Assessing methodological quality in dental education research using MERSQI: Analysis of publications from two journals.

PURPOSE: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) has been used frequently to assess the methodological quality of medical education but not for dental education. The present study aimed to assess the methodological quality using MERSQI scores of articles published in the Journal of Dental Education (JDE) and the European Journal of Dental Education (EJDE). METHODS: A cross-sectional assessment of the quality of manuscripts published in 2012, 2017, and 2022 JDE and EJDE was conducted. MERSQI data, numbers of authors, first and corresponding author degrees, geographic origins, and funding information were also extracted for each included study. Descriptive and analytical statistics were conducted, and significance level was set at α < 0.05. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-five articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common study design was a single-group cross-sectional or single-group posttest and conducted in one institution for all studied years. In all journals and years, studies were assessed mainly by participants. The study outcome was mostly satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions, opinions, and general facts. The total mean MERSQI score for each journal and year varied. Year and geographic origin significantly affected the total MERSQI score. Papers originating from Asia had the highest score, followed by South America, Europe, North America, Oceania, and Africa. CONCLUSION: MERSQI score is applicable to the assessment of the methodological quality of dental educational research. The MERSQI score for most of the domains was similar for both journals. The MERSQI score was affected by publication years and geographic origins.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

Using Policy Briefs to Communicate Dental Research Findings to Policymakers.

OBJECTIVES: New scientific knowledge is not always available to decision makers. Policy briefs are a way that dental researchers can communicate research findings to policymakers. This study compares usefulness of 2 types of policy briefs about sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and tooth decay. METHODS: We developed 2 policy brief types (data focused and narrative focused) and emailed a randomly assigned policy brief to 825 policymakers and staff from 3 levels of government (city, county, and state) in Washington State. Participants completed a 22-item online questionnaire. There were 4 study outcomes: whether the brief was understandable, whether the brief was credible, likelihood of use, and likelihood to be shared (each measured on a 5-point Likert-like scale). The t test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05). RESULTS: There were 108 respondents (adjusted response rate 14.6%). About 41.6% of participants were in city government, 26.9% were in county government, and 29.6% were in state government. Participants reported that both data- and narrative-focused briefs were understandable (mean rating [MR] and standard deviation [SD]: 4.15 ± 0.68 and 4.09 ± 0.81, respectively; P = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; P = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; P = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; P = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (P = 0.017). Participants at the state level were more likely to share information from the briefs (mean rating and SD: 3.10 ± 0.80) than city- and county-level participants (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.27, and 2.24 ± 1.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both data- and narrative-focused policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional steps are needed to ensure that briefs are used and shared. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Researchers should disseminate their research findings to maximize scientific impact. Our study findings indicate that policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional research is needed on the best ways to disseminate findings.

A critical look at outcome measures: Comparison between four dental research journals by use of a hierarchical model.

AIM: To assess the status quo of outcome measures used in treatment studies in Endodontics, and potentially identify strategies for improvement, by (i) systematically assessing the outcome measures using a conceptual model and (ii) comparing these with measures used in corresponding studies in the adjacent fields. METHODOLOGY: The International Endodontic Journal, Caries Research, The Journal of Clinical Periodontology and The Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache were selected to cover four adjacent dental disciplines. In each journal, the 50 most recent consecutive publications fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. A hierarchical model for diagnostic imaging studies was modified to assess studies related to treatment. The model comprised six levels, with technical as the lowest level and societal as the highest. Extracted data included study origin, study type, and identified outcome measures. Fisher's Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections compared studies. p < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Amongst 756 publications, the 200 most recent studies matching the inclusion criteria were identified. Less than half (36.5%) assessed the clinical, patient, or societal aspects of treatment; 10.0% in International Endodontic Journal, 28.0% in Caries Research, 38.0% in Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and 70.0% in Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: According to included publications, research on treatment within the endodontic field is mainly focusing on technical and biological outcomes. The benefits of patients and society were less frequently examined than in corresponding journals in adjacent disciplines. When designing studies, including higher-level outcomes should be considered.