RESUMO
The development of normal occlusion requires eruptive migration of teeth from their developmental position in the jaw into a functional position within the oral cavity. This process involves significant and coordinated movement in an axial direction and appropriate eruption through the gingival tissues. The mechanisms regulating these developmental events are poorly understood, and teeth retain eruptive potential throughout their lifespan. In recent years, the use of mouse models has helped to elucidate some of the underlying molecular and biological mechanisms of mammalian tooth eruption. Here, we outline our current understanding of tooth eruption mechanisms and discuss their relevance in terms of known human disorders of tooth eruption.
Assuntos
Erupção Dentária , Erupção Dentária/fisiologia , Humanos , Animais , CamundongosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The published literature represents the fundamental basis of any academic specialty, including orthodontics. Orthodontic research outputs provide useful insight into clinical and research priorities, which can help inform future research efforts and resource outputs. In recent years, the need for more patient-reported outcomes in orthodontic research has been highlighted. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most common reported research subjects in orthodontics between 2013-23; (2) identify the main outcomes and types of study design associated with this research, including study design related to patient-reported outcomes; and (3) identify trends in this research activity based upon these findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in a single electronic database (Scopus) to return all indexed publications with relevance to orthodontics published from 2013 to 2023. The 50 most-cited publications per year were then identified. Publication characteristics were extracted using a data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics including frequency distributions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 14 397 publications were identified. Publications on orthodontic bonding made up 7.02% of all output, followed by materials (5.88%) and tooth movement (5.42%). Subsequent analysis of the most-cited publications per year revealed the most frequently published subjects were aligners (12.5%), orthodontic tooth movement (9.45%), and digital workflow (9.09%), and the most common study designs were in vitro (19.09%) and retrospective observational studies (15.45%). The most common outcome type was morphological features of malocclusion (26.9%). Conversely, patient-focused measures were only reported in 12.7% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic research outputs are dynamic but do show consistent research interest in certain subjects. There is a predilection for the reporting of clinician-focused outcomes; whilst these have some value, more efforts should be focused on conducting rigorous and robust studies that include patient-reported outcomes.
Assuntos
Bibliometria , Ortodontia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Humanos , Pesquisa em Odontologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos LongitudinaisRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: In meta-analyses with few studies, between-study heterogeneity is poorly estimated. The Hartung and Knapp (HK) correction and the prediction intervals can account for the uncertainty in estimating heterogeneity and the range of effect sizes we may encounter in future trials, respectively. The aim of this study was to assess the reported use of the HK correction in oral health meta-analyses and to compare the published reported results and interpretation i) to those calculated using eight heterogeneity estimators and the HK adjustment ii) and to the prediction intervals (PIs). METHODS: We sourced systematic reviews (SRs) published between 2021 and 2023 in eighteen leading specialty and general dental journals. We extracted study characteristics at the SR and meta-analysis level and re-analyzed the selected meta-analyses via the random-effects model and eight heterogeneity estimators, with and without the HK correction. For each meta-analysis, we re-calculated the overall estimate, the P-value, the 95% confidence interval (CI) and the PI. RESULTS: We analysed 292 meta-analyses. The median number of primary studies included in meta-analysis was 8 (interquartile range [IQR]= [5.75-15] range: 3-121). Only 3/292 meta-analyses used the HK adjustment and 12/292 reported PIs. The percentage of statistically significant results that became non-significant varied across the heterogeneity estimators (7.45%- 16.59%). Based on the PIs, more than 60% of meta-analyses with statistically significant results are likely to change in the future and more than 40% of the PIs included the opposite pooled effect. CONCLUSIONS: The precision and statistical significance of the pooled estimates from meta-analyses with at least three studies is sensitive to the HK correction, the heterogeneity variance estimator, and the PIs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Uncertainty in meta-analyses estimates should be considered especially when a small number of trials is available or vary notably in their precision. Misinterpretation of the summary results can lead to ineffective interventions being applied in clinical practice.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. MATERIALS AND METHOD: An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models.
Assuntos
Ortodontia , Ortodontia/normas , Animais , Modelos Animais , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Guias como Assunto , Lista de Checagem , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Experimentação Animal/normas , Pesquisa em Odontologia/normas , Editoração/normasRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The maxillary permanent canine is one of the most frequently impacted teeth, which often requires multidisciplinary management. A common complication of canine impaction is root resorption of the adjacent dentition. The aim of this retrospective study was to report the prevalence of root resorption of maxillary incisors adjacent to impacted maxillary canines from small volume CBCT images by trained clinicians. A secondary objective was to report the location and severity of root resorption. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CBCT images of patients with impacted maxillary canines (unilateral and bilateral) who attended a joint orthodontic/surgical multidisciplinary clinic were screened. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate associations of patient characteristics and presence of root resorption. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model were used to identify predictors of root resorption. RESULTS: In all, 148 impacted maxillary canines (122 patients) were analysed. The majority of patients were under 18 years of age (71.6%) with impacted canines present in more females (68.2%) than males (31.8%). Maxillary lateral incisors showed the highest prevalence of root resorption (38.5%). The apical region was the most common location of resorption for lateral incisors (20.9%) with a variable degree of severity evident: slight (10.1%), moderate (15.6%), and severe (12.8%). Although no significant predictors of root resorption were identified, a weak association was evident for age and root development. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, the roots of maxillary lateral incisors are most likely to suffer from root resorption in the presence of an impacted maxillary canine. Clinicians should consider the extent, location and severity of resorption of adjacent teeth when planning treatment decisions and mechanics in cases of impacted maxillary canines.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observe intervention effect estimates when new data become available. METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same health-care question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ratio of odds ratio (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance. RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n = 29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78-0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.
Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Metanálise como Assunto , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodosRESUMO
Meta-analyses may provide imprecise estimates when important meta-analysis parameters are not considered during the synthesis. The aim of this case study was to highlight the influence of meta-analysis parameters that can affect reported estimates using as an example pre-existing meta-analyses on the association between implant survival and sinus membrane perforation. PubMed was searched on 7 July 2021 for meta-analyses comparing implant failure in perforated and non-perforated sinus membranes. Primary studies identified in these meta-analyses were combined in a new random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals reported. Using this new meta-analysis, further meta-analyses were then undertaken considering the clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity of the primary studies, publication bias, and clustering effects. The meta-analyses with the greatest number and more homogeneous studies provided lower odds of implant failure in non-perforated sites (OR 0.49, 95 % CI = [0.26, 0.92]). However, when considering heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering (number of implants), the confidence in these results was reduced. Interpretation of estimates reported in systematic reviews can vary depending on the assumptions made in the meta-analysis. Users of these analyses need to carefully consider the impact of heterogeneity, publication bias, and clustering, which can affect the size, direction, and interpretation of the reported estimates.
Assuntos
Odontologia , Viés de Publicação , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored. RESULTS: 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.
Assuntos
Ortodontia , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Ortodontistas , Marketing , Estudos EpidemiológicosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate clear aligner therapy (CAT) practice among orthodontists in the British Orthodontic Society (BOS). DESIGN: A cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the BOS in 2022. The survey comprised questions regarding respondent demographics, general use of CAT, the choice of proprietary CAT appliances, CAT planning, case selection, treatment protocols and orthodontist-reported CAT problems. RESULTS: Overall, 233 (19.5%) responses were received with the majority (n = 121, 53.1%) being female. Most respondents reported practising in England (n = 171, 74.7%). The majority (n = 177, 77.3%) indicated that they used CAT in their practice, with 48.1% (n = 81) treating 1-20 patients with CAT annually. The most frequently prescribed CAT system was Invisalign (n = 138, 81.2%). One to three changes to the initial digital treatment plan were made by 72.9% (n = 121) with final tooth positions being the most common reason for adjustment (64.4%). Most (n = 97, 60.3%) rarely or never performed premolar extractions with CAT. Of the respondents, 23 12.7%) reported that they always or mostly used a remote monitoring system in conjunction with CAT, with a wide range of aligner change protocols reported. The median number of months required to complete non-extraction CAT reported by the respondents was 12. Most respondents (n = 77, 51.7%) did not feel that CAT provides superior outcomes compared with fixed appliance therapy. CONCLUSION: CAT practice varied widely among the surveyed orthodontists. A predilection for the use of Invisalign and utility in less severe cases was noted.
RESUMO
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether an association between study quality, other study characteristics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) existed in orthodontic studies. Methods: The Scopus database was searched to identify orthodontic studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Study characteristics, including study quality were extracted and entered into a pre-pilot data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated. On an exploratory basis, random forest and gradient boosting machine learning algorithms were used to examine the influence of article characteristics on AAS. Results: In total, 586 studies with an AAS were analyzed. Overall, the mean AAS of the samples was 5. Twitter was the most popular social media platform for publicizing studies, accounting for 53.7%. In terms of study quality, only 19.1% of the studies were rated as having a high level of quality, with 41.8% of the studies deemed moderate quality. The type of social media platform, number of citations, impact factor, and study type were among the most influential characteristics of AAS in both models. In contrast, study quality was one of the least influential characteristics on the AAS. Conclusions: Social media platforms contributed the most to the AAS for orthodontic studies, whereas study quality had little impact on the AAS.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Maxillary incisor and canine teeth are commonly impacted and require multidisciplinary treatment to accommodate them in the dental arch. OBJECTIVES: To assess the periodontal outcomes of impacted maxillary central incisor and canine teeth, which have been successfully aligned in the arch following surgical exposure and orthodontic traction with fixed appliance therapy. SEARCH METHODS: Systematic literature searches without restrictions were undertaken in eight databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting surgical interventions in combination with orthodontic traction with fixed appliance therapy to align impacted maxillary incisors or canines published up to January 2023. DATA COLLECTION: Duplicate independent study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. ANALYSIS: Random-effects meta-analyses of aggregate data. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (21 retrospective and 2 prospective) were included in the final analysis. Three studies reported outcomes for maxillary central incisors and 20 reported outcomes for maxillary canines. For maxillary central incisors, all three studies were rated as being at moderate risk of bias. For maxillary canines, 17 studies and 1 study were rated at moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. Both prospective studies were rated at a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses comparing aligned impacted maxillary canines to their non-impacted contralateral counterparts found the former had increased Plaque Index scores (mean difference [MD] 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03, 0.35; P = 0.03), increased clinical attachment loss (MD 0.40 mm; 95% CI 0.17, 0.63; P = 0.01), increased pocket probing depth (MD 0.18 mm; 95% CI 0.07, 0.28; P = 0.001), increased bone loss (MD 0.51 mm; 95% CI 0.31, 0.72; P < 0.001), and reduced keratinized gingival width (MD -0.31 mm; 95% CI -0.61, -0.01; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment of impacted maxillary central incisor or canine teeth, results in modest adverse effects in the periodontium. These findings should be viewed with caution as our certainty for these outcomes is very low to low due to the bias and heterogeneity. Further well-conducted studies reporting patient centred outcomes are required. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020225639).
Assuntos
Dente Canino , Dente Impactado , Humanos , Incisivo , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Dente Impactado/cirurgiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In meta-analyses involving a few trials, appropriate measures should be employed to assess between-study heterogeneity. When the number of studies is less than five and heterogeneity is evident, the Hartung and Knapp (HK) correction should be used. The aim of this study was to compare the reported estimates of published orthodontic meta-analyses with the pooled effect size estimates and prediction intervals (PI) calculated using eight heterogeneity estimators and corrected using the HK correction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic reviews (SRs) published between 2017 and 2022 in four orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with a meta-analysis of at least three studies were sourced. Study characteristics were extracted at the SR and the outcome/meta-analysis levels. All selected meta-analyses were re-analysed by fitting a random-effects model using eight different heterogeneity estimators, both with and without the HK correction. For each meta-analysis, the overall estimate, along with its standard error, the P-value, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), the between-study variance (tau2), the I2 statistic, and the PI were calculated. RESULTS: One-hundred-six SRs were analysed. The most prevalent type of SR was non-Cochrane (95.3%), and the most used meta-analyses synthesis model was the random effect (83.0%). The median number of primary studies was 6 (interquartile range: 5, range: 3-45). The between-study variance was reported in most of the eligible meta-analyses (91.5%), but the type of heterogeneity estimator was reported in only one of them (0.9%). In 5 of 106 meta-analyses (4.7%), the HK correction was applied to adjust the CI of the pooled estimate. The percentage of statistically significant results, which became statistically non-significant, ranged from 16.7% to 25%, depending on the heterogeneity estimator. As the number of studies in a meta-analysis increased, the difference between corrected and uncorrected CIs reduced. Based on the PIs, more than half of the meta-analyses having statistically significant results are likely to change in the future, suggesting the result of the meta-analysis is not conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical significance of pooled estimates from meta-analyses with at least three studies is sensitive to the HK correction, the heterogeneity variance estimator, and PIs. Clinicians should be aware of the clinical implications of not appropriately assessing the effect of the small number of studies and the between-study heterogeneity when interpreting results from meta-analyses.
Assuntos
Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Humanos , Estudos EpidemiológicosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Adequate reporting of limitations is crucial to enable clinicians to accurately interpret the clinical trial findings. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to evaluate whether study limitations are reported in full-text articles of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the leading dental journals. Associations between the trial characteristics and the reporting of limitations were also explored. METHODS: RCTs published between 1st January and 31st December in the years 2011, 2016 and 2021 were identified from the 12 high impact factor dental journals (general and specialty). RCT characteristics were extracted, and reporting of limitations was recorded for the selected studies. Descriptive statistics were calculated for trial and limitations related characteristics. Univariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to explore univariable associations between trial characteristics and reporting of limitations. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-seven trials were included and analyzed. Most RCTs were published in 2021 (40.8%), had authors based in Europe (50.2%), did not have a statistician involved (88.8%) and assessed a procedure/method intervention type (40.5%). The reporting of trial limitations was generally sub-optimal. More recent trials and studies with a published protocol were associated with better reporting of limitations. The type of journal was a significant predictor for limitation reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Within this study, the clear reporting of study limitations in the manuscripts of dental RCTs is sub-optimal and requires improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The reporting of limitations should not be viewed as a weakness of a trial but due diligence, so clinicians can fully interpret the impact of these limitations on both the validity and generalisability of the results.
Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Publicações , Modelos Logísticos , Europa (Continente)RESUMO
Aims To evaluate the quality of information and compliance with General Dental Council (GDC) ethical advertising guidelines for English-language orthodontic websites providing orthodontic treatment with aligners in the United Kingdom (UK).Materials and methods The term 'orthodontic aligners or braces' was entered into the Google online search engine. The first 100 English language orthodontic websites (practice or company) were pooled. Both the quality (DISCERN instrument) and compliance with GDC ethical advertising guidelines were assessed. Frequency distributions and the overall summative DISCERN score for each website were calculated.Results The overall mean DISCERN score was 42.9 (SD = 9.4). The quality of information was only rated as good-excellent for 16% of websites and only 11% of websites showed full compliance with GDC guidelines on ethical advertising. A link to the GDC/authority website (75%), the date when the website was last updated (72%), and the practice complaints policy (66%) were not commonly provided. The country of qualification, a statement of whether practices provide NHS or private treatment or a combination of both, and the date when the website was last updated, were significant predictors for the overall quality based on DISCERN score.Conclusions The quality of information provided on websites providing aligner therapy and their compliance with GDC guidelines on ethical advertising was suboptimal. An improvement in both areas is required.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Item 13 of the CONSORT guidelines recommends documentation of the participant flow in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using a diagram. In the medical literature, the reporting of the flow of participants in RCTs has been assessed to be inadequate. The quality of reporting flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of flow diagrams in RCTs published in periodontology and implantology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs published between 15th January 2018 and 15th January 2022 in twelve high-ranked periodontology and implantology journals were identified. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. The flow diagram included in each RCT was assessed for completeness of reporting in relation to published criteria and the CONSORT flow diagram template. RESULTS: From the 544 eligible articles, 85% were single-centre, 82% of parallel-group design and 79% investigated surgical interventions. Three-hundred and fifteen (58%) articles were published in CONSORT endorsing journals. A flow diagram was reported in 317 (58%) trials and reporting was more common in periodontology (73.1%). Overall, 56% of publications with a flow diagram reported a complete CONSORT flow diagram, while in 44% of flow diagrams, at least one point from the CONSORT reporting template was missing. Reasons for loss to follow-up (69.7%) and exclusions from the RCT analysis (86.4%) were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The reporting of flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology RCTs was sub-optimal. Greater awareness of the importance of fully completing the participant CONSORT flow diagram is required.
Assuntos
Publicações , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A failure of maxillary incisor eruption is commonly attributed to the presence of a supernumerary tooth. This systematic review aimed to assess the percentage of impacted maxillary incisors that successfully erupt after surgical removal of supernumerary teeth with or without other interventions. METHODS: Systematic literature searches without restrictions were undertaken in 8 databases for studies reporting any intervention aimed at facilitating incisor eruption, including surgical removal of the supernumerary alone or in conjunction with additional interventions published up to September 2022. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions and Newcastle-Ottawa scale, random-effects meta-analyses of aggregate data were conducted. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (14 retrospective and 1 prospective) were included with 1058 participants (68.9% male; mean age, 9.1 years). The pooled eruption prevalence for removal of the supernumerary tooth with space creation or removal of the supernumerary tooth with orthodontic traction was significantly higher at 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5-93.2) and 96.9% (95% CI, 83.8-99.9) respectively, compared with removal of an associated supernumerary only (57.6%; 95% CI, 47.8-67.0). The odds of successful eruption of an impacted maxillary incisor after removal of a supernumerary were more favorable if the obstruction was removed in the deciduous dentition (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90; P = 0.02); if the supernumeraries were conical (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.98-4.28; P <0.001); if the incisor was in the correct position (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.14-4.20; P = 0.02), at the level of the gingival third (OR 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.97; P = 0.04) and had incomplete root formation (OR, 9.02; 95% CI, 2.04-39.78; P = 0.004). Delaying removal of the supernumerary tooth 12 months after the expected eruption time of the maxillary incisor (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.10-1.03; P = 0.05) and waiting >6 months for spontaneous eruption after removal of the obstacle (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.50; P = 0.003) was associated with worse odds for eruption. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence indicated that the adjunctive use of orthodontic measures and removal of supernumerary teeth might be associated with greater odds of successfull impacted incisor eruption than removal of the supernumerary tooth alone. Certain characteristics related to supernumerary type and the position or developmental stage of the incisor may also influence successful eruption after removal of the supernumerary. However, these findings should be viewed with caution as our certainty is very low to low because of bias and heterogeneity. Further well-conducted and reported studies are required. The results of this systematic review have been used to inform and justify the iMAC Trial.
Assuntos
Dente Impactado , Dente Supranumerário , Humanos , Masculino , Criança , Feminino , Incisivo/cirurgia , Dente Supranumerário/complicações , Dente Supranumerário/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Prospectivos , Dente Impactado/cirurgia , Erupção Dentária , Maxila/cirurgiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Clustering effects can be encountered in periodontology and implant dentistry research. The aim of this study was to identify studies with clustering effects published in periodontology and oral implantology specialty journals and to assess the frequency by which clustered designs are correctly accounted for in the statistical analysis. METHODS: Ten periodontology and oral implantology journals were searched to identify studies with clustering effects published between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Associations between the correct statistical handling of clustering effects and study characteristics were explored. RESULTS: A total of 695 studies were included of which 45.0% correctly accounted for clustering effects in the statistical analysis. Certain journals (p < 0.01) and animal studies (p < 0.01) had lower odds of correctly accounting for clustering effects in the statistical analysis, whereas per unit increase in impact factor (p < 0.001), involvement of statistician (p < 0.001) and when the study design included either repeated measures only (p < 0.01) or both clustering and repeated measures (p < 0.001) had higher odds. The most commonly used tests were the mixed models or generalized estimating equations (64.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater awareness of the importance of accounting for clustering effects is required to prevent incorrect inferences being drawn. Incorrect inferences are related to lack of data independence and the artificial inflation of the sample size which can result in statistically significant results which are not genuine. This issue can be further exaggerated in combination with publication bias.
Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Periodontia , Análise por ConglomeradosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: When proper randomization has been undertaken, statistical testing of baseline characteristics between participants in trial arms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is not required. This investigation aimed to assess the prevalence of statistical testing of baseline differences in orthodontic RCTs. Factors influencing the undertaking of this analysis were explored. METHODS: Orthodontic RCTs published between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021 in 5 orthodontic journals were identified. To determine if statistical testing of baseline differences had been undertaken, each article was reviewed in detail to identify the reporting of P values and the term "significant difference" in the table of characteristics, the table legends, and the results section of each included RCT. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. Frequency distributions were calculated for the included trial characteristics. Significant predictors from the univariate analysis were used to construct a multivariable Bayesian logistic regression model. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two RCTs were analyzed. Significance testing of baseline characteristics was undertaken in 50% (66/132) of RCTs. At a journal level, significance testing at baseline was infrequently undertaken in RCTs published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO). Compared with 2017, RCTs published in 2018 (odds ratio [OR], 5.57; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.33-25.69), 2019 (OR, 17.82; 95% CrI, 4.41-82.11), 2020 (OR, 6.48; 95% CrI, 1.72-27.12), and 2021 (OR, 3.24, 95% CrI, 0.81-14.01) had higher odds of significance testing at baseline. RCTs published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (OR, 5.31; 95% CrI, 1.79-17.04), Progress in Orthodontics (OR, 5.00; 95% CrI, 0.97-28.43), Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (OR, 6.49; 95% CrI, 1.04-46.10), and Angle Orthodontist (OR, 12.30; 95% CrI, 3.27-51.44) had higher odds of significant testing at baseline testing compared with AJODO. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical testing of baseline differences is common in orthodontic RCTs. Trials published in AJODO had the lowest incidence of statistical testing of baseline differences. RCTs published between 2018-2021 had higher odds of significance testing at baseline than in 2017. Per the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines, this practice should be discouraged as it can be misleading and unnecessary.
Assuntos
Ortodontia , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Prevalência , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Assistência OdontológicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics. METHODS: An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics. RESULTS: In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.
Assuntos
Saúde Bucal , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Viés de Publicação , PublicaçõesRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Space closure is a challenging and time-consuming phase of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. This systematic review evaluated canine retraction duration using fixed appliances after maxillary first premolar extraction. METHODS: Unrestricted systematic literature searches were conducted in 8 databases for randomized clinical trials, assessing the duration and rate of maxillary canine retraction using fixed appliances with or without treatment adjuncts published up to July 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation were conducted independently and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of average rates or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were conducted at α = 5%, followed by sensitivity and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis. RESULTS: Fifty randomized clinical trials (6 parallel and 44 split-mouth designs) covering 811 participants (mean age 19.9 years; 34% male) were included. The estimated average pooled duration to achieve complete canine retraction was 4.98 months (2 trials; 95% CI, -2.9 to 12.88 months). Pooled average canine retraction was 0.97 mm at months 0-1 (23 trials; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), 1.83 mm at months 0-2 (20 trials; 95% CI, 1.52-2.14), 2.44 mm at months 0-3 (23 trials; 95% CI, 2.10-2.79), 3.49 mm at months 0-4 (6 trials; 95% CI, 1.81-5.17) and 4.25 mm at months 0-5 (2 trials; 95% CI, 0.36-8.14). Surgically-assisted orthodontics was associated with greater canine retraction at all time points: months 0-1 (10 trials; MD, 0.52 mm; P = 0.004), months 0-2 (8 trials; MD, 0.53 mm; P = 0.04), months 0-3 (8 trials; MD, 0.67 mm; P = 0.01), and months 0-4 (3 trials; MD, 1.13 mm; P = 0.01), whereas subgroup analyses indicated significant effects of anchorage reinforcement method and bracket slot size on canine retraction. CONCLUSIONS: The average time to achieve complete retraction of the maxillary canine using fixed appliances was around 5.0 months. Most studies used split-mouth randomization to investigate canine retraction for around 1-3 months, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. At 3 months of treatment, high-quality evidence supported greater canine retraction with surgically-assisted orthodontics.