RESUMO
The deep margin elevation (DME) technique has gained popularity because of numerous supporting case reports. However, some clinicians are cautious regarding using this technique owing to the lack of clear case selection criteria for DME application. This review aimed to analyze case reports and a series of DME cases to determine pre-/post-operative evaluation methods that could be used to suggest a pre-operative case selection checklist for DME. An electronic database search was conducted in June 2021 and updated by June 2023 using selected terms from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Scopus. The search was limited to English-language publications and was not restricted to the date. The inclusion criteria were case reports/series addressing periodontal and restorative outcomes of DME. The search identified 217 articles, 76 of which were pertinent. However, only six case reports and one case series satisfied the inclusion criteria. None of the selected studies followed any reporting guidelines, which led to significant information gaps. While the reviewed studies reported favorable outcomes, standardized protocols for evaluating pre-/post-operative restorative and periodontal status were lacking. The post-operative follow-up period varied from 3 months to 6 years. Designing and implementing pre-/post-operative guidelines hold the potential for ensuring the safe application of the DME technique. This may enhance our understanding of the suitability and efficacy of such non-invasive technique in future clinical trials. Clinical significance: Handling deep cavities and preparing crowns are challenging. However, a lack of understanding of when to perform DME can lead to missed opportunities for conservative treatment, thereby a disservice to the patient. Provision of safe guidelines should be employed by clinicians until further evidence either supports or contradicts this treatment method.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals. METHODS: Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases. RESULTS: A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Researchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.