Sociomedical and oral factors affecting masticatory performance in an older population.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the sociomedical and oral factors affecting masticatory performance in a community-dwelling older population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Community-dwelling persons over 60 years were investigated using medical and dental oral interviews, oral and denture examination (natural teeth, tooth mobility, number of occluding tooth pairs, and removable dentures' prevalence and quality), and evaluation of masticatory performance using a mixing ability test. RESULTS: A total of 130 participants with a mean age of 73.9±8.5 years were recorded. Fifty-eight (44.6%) used various types of removable prostheses. Twenty were edentulous and used a pair of complete dentures. Univariate analyses revealed statistically significant associations (p≤0.05) between masticatory performance and aging, marital status, subjective chewing ability, use of removable dentures, use of various combinations of complete dentures, pain caused by maxillary denture, number of teeth, tooth mobility, posterior chewing pairs, all chewing contacts natural or prosthetic, retention of mandibular partial dentures, and dentures' occlusion. The multivariable quantile regression analysis revealed that fewer natural teeth (95% CI: -0.02-0.01, p<0.001), being edentulous and using a pair of complete dentures (95% CI: 0.09-0.35, p=0.001), and larger percentage of severely mobile teeth (95% CI: 0.07-0.82, p=0.020) were associated with lower masticatory performance. CONCLUSIONS: Poor masticatory performance in older adults was associated with fewer teeth, being edentulous and using a pair of complete dentures, and increased prevalence of severe tooth mobility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Retaining the natural dentition and preventing and treating periodontal disease are important measures to maintain masticatory performance in older adults.

Oral factors and adherence to Mediterranean diet in an older Greek population.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of oral factors on adherence to the Mediterranean diet in an older population METHODS: 130 persons over 60 years visiting Open Care Community Centers for Older People participated in this study. Oral interviews recorded demographic and sociomedical information, subjective oral complaints, and dental habits. Adherence to Mediterranean diet was assessed using the MDI_BNC4H index (range: 0-14). An oral examination was performed, and evaluation of the masticatory performance was carried out using a two-color chewing gum that was digitally analysed. RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 73.9 ± 8.5 years. The score of adherence to the Mediterranean diet ranged from 3 to 9 (5.6 ± 1.4). 58 participants used removable prostheses, while 20 used a pair of complete dentures. Univariate analyses revealed that the parameters that negatively significantly, or marginally significantly, affected the level of adherence to the Mediterranean diet were lower masticatory performance (p = 0.050), larger number of drugs per day (p = 0.056), higher BMI (p = 0.043) and smoking (p = 0.053). The multivariable analysis revealed that lower adherence to the Mediterranean diet was significantly associated with higher BMI (p = 0.047) and lower masticatory performance (p = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Increased masticatory performance was an independent predictor of better adherence to the Mediterranean diet in an older population.

Development of a Greek Oral health literacy measurement instrument: GROHL.

BACKGROUND: Oral health literacy is an important construct for both clinical and public health outcomes research. The need to quantify and test OHL has led to the development of measurement instruments and has generated a substantial body of recent literature. A commonly used OHL instrument is REALD-30, a word recognition scale that has been adapted for use in several languages. The objective of this study was the development and testing of the Greek language oral health literacy measurement instrument (GROHL). METHODS: Data from 282 adult patients of two private dental clinics in Athens, Greece were collected via in-person interviews. Forty-four words were initially considered and tested for inclusion. Item response theory analysis (IRT) and 2-parameter logistic models assessing difficulty and discriminatory ability were used to identify an optimal scale composition. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in a subset of 20 participants over a two-week period. Convergent validity was tested against functional health literacy screening (HLS) items, dental knowledge (DK), oral health behaviors (OHBs), oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL; OHIP-14 index), as well as self-reported oral and general health status. RESULTS: From an initial item pool of 44 items that were carried forward to IRT, 12 were excluded due to no or little variance, 10 were excluded due to low item-test correlation, and 2 due to insignificant contribution to the scale, i.e., difficulty parameter estimate with p > 0.05. The twenty remaining items composed the final index which showed favorable internal consistency (alpha = 0.80) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.95). The summary score distribution did not depart from normality (p = 0.32; mean = 11.5; median = 12; range = 1-20). GROHL scores were positively correlated with favorable oral hygiene behaviors and dental attendance, as well as HLS, DK and education level. CONCLUSION: The GROHL demonstrated good psychometric properties and can be used for outcomes research in clinical and public health settings.

Outcome reporting discrepancies between trial entries and published final reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify outcome-related discrepancies between registry trial entries and final published reports in orthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The percentage of registered orthodontic RCTs was also recorded. MATERIALS/METHOD: Five trial registries, ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (http://www.isrctn.com/), European Union Clinical Trials Register (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/), Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au/) and Clinical Trials Registry of India (www.ctri.nic.in/) were searched up to April 2018 in order to identify completed orthodontic RCTs. The unique trial identifier, the title and authors name were used to search for publications based on entries within Google (https://www.google.com), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.gr/) and MEDLINE via PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). Outcome reporting discrepancies and a number of other entry/publication characteristics were recorded including timing of registration, type of journal/publication, significance of the primary outcome in the final report. The number of trials registered among the total number of published RCTs in orthodontics was recorded within the time span assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four entries were identified for completed orthodontic RCTs, whereas 53 of those were related to published final reports. Outcome reporting discrepancies were ascertained for 47 per cent of publications (n = 2 5); discrepancies were more prevalent for non-primary outcomes (n = 21, 40 per cent). Only 16 per cent of the published orthodontic RCTs had been registered. LIMITATIONS: Only a subset of trial entries were assessed as these were related to publication records. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Registration of clinical trials in orthodontics remains far from universal. A significant level of outcome reporting discrepancy was observed within this subset of registered trials.

Statistical analysis in orthodontic journals: are we ignoring confounding?

AIM: To assess the prevalence of adjustment for confounding within statistical analysis and matching at the design stage in leading orthodontic journals and to explore potential associations between accounting for confounding and publication characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four issues of four leading orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor were searched from July 2014 backwards. Confounding adjustment through statistical analysis and study characteristics including journal, study design, region of origin, number of authors, number of centres, involvement of a statistician, significance of results, and type of analysis were recorded. Reporting of matching at the design stage was also recorded. RESULTS: Of 426 studies identified, only 71 (17 per cent) accounted for confounding in the statistical analysis. There was evidence that journal, country of authorship, and involvement of a statistician (odds ratio = 3.91, 95 per cent confidence interval: 2.16-7.10; P < 0.001) were significant predictors of accounting for confounding at the analysis level. Reporting of matching at the design stage was identified in 111 of 426 (26 per cent) studies in which 9 studies adjusted for confounding at the analysis level. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate adjustment for confounding in orthodontic literature either at the design or at the analysis stage was identified in less than half of studies overall (41 per cent), suggesting lack of expertise and awareness in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of non-randomized studies in this field. This is a critical limitation that can potentially result in biased estimates and associations between examined exposures and outcomes.

Randomized and nonrandomized studies: complementary or competing?

Both randomized and nonrandomized studies are integral to orthodontic research and practice because they permit evaluation of relationships between exposures and outcomes, allowing the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of interventions to be assessed. These designs allow clinical decisions to be informed. Nonrandomized designs include nonrandomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, and ecological studies. There is debate surrounding the optimal research design; however, both randomized and nonrandomized designs are important to build a broad, informative evidence base. The designs are therefore complementary, with unique advantages and limitations. The applicability of either approach hinges on the clinical question posed, the feasibility of studying it, and ethical considerations.

Factorial designs: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials.

Factorial designs for clinical trials are often encountered in medical, dental, and orthodontic research. Factorial designs assess two or more interventions simultaneously and the main advantage of this design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as more than one intervention may be assessed on the same participants. However, the factorial design is efficient only under the assumption of no interaction (no effect modification) between the treatments under investigation and, therefore, this should be considered at the design stage. Conversely, the factorial study design may also be used for the purpose of detecting an interaction between two interventions if the study is powered accordingly. However, a factorial design powered to detect an interaction has no advantage in terms of the required sample size compared to a multi-arm parallel trial for assessing more than one intervention. It is the purpose of this article to highlight the methodological issues that should be considered when planning, analysing, and reporting the simplest form of this design, which is the 2 × 2 factorial design. An example from the field of orthodontics using two parameters (bracket type and wire type) on maxillary incisor torque loss will be utilized in order to explain the design requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of this design, and its application in orthodontic research.

The reporting quality of meta-analysis results of systematic review abstracts in periodontology and implant dentistry is suboptimal.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Faggion CM Jr., Liu J, Huda F, Atieh M. J Periodontal Res 2014; 49(2):137-42. REVIEWER: Argy Polychronopoulou, DDS, MS, ScM, ScD PURPOSE/QUESTION: What is the reporting quality of meta-analysis results of abstracts of systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry journals? SOURCE OF FUNDING: The authors received no funding for this study TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Other evidence STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION GRADE: Not applicable.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM: Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals.

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Psychological distress and its correlates among dental students: a survey of 17 Colombian dental schools.

BACKGROUND: Links between the demanding nature of studies in the health sciences, students' personality traits and psychological distress have been well-established. While considerable amount of work has been done in medicine, evidence from the dental education arena is sparse and data from Latin America are lacking. The authors conducted a large-scale investigation of psychological distress among dental students in Colombia and sought to determine its curriculum and student-level correlates. METHODS: The Spanish version of the Derogatis' Symptoms Checklist Revised (SCL-90-R) was administered to all students officially registered and attending classes or clinics in 17 dental schools in 4 geographic districts of Colombia between January and April 2012. Additional information was collected on participants' socio-demographic information and first career choice, as well as school's characteristics such as class size. The Global Severity Index (GSI) score, a measure of overall psychological distress, served as the primary analytical endpoint. Analyses relied on multilevel mixed-effects linear and log-binomial regression, accounting for study design and sample characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 5700 dental students completed the survey, a response rate of 67%. Pronounced gradients were noted in the association between socio-economic status and psychological distress, with students in higher strata reporting fewer problems. After adjustment for all important covariates, there was an evident pattern of increasing psychological distress corresponding to the transition from the didactic, to the preclinical and clinical phases of training, with few differences between male and female students. Independent of other factors, reliance on own funds for education and having dentistry as the first career choice were associated with lower psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of psychological distress correlated with students' socio-economic and study-level characteristics. Above and beyond the influence of person-level factors, variations in levels of distress paralleled specific transitional stages of the 5-year dental curriculum, providing opportunities for targeted interventions.

Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this trial was to compare the survival rates of mandibular lingual retainers bonded with either chemically cured or light-cured adhesive after orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at a private orthodontic office were randomly allocated to fixed retainers placed with chemically cured composite or light-cured composite. Eligibility criteria included no active caries, restorations, or fractures on the mandibular anterior teeth, and adequate oral hygiene. The main outcome was any type of first-time lingual retainer breakage; pattern of failure (adapted adhesive remnant index scores) was a secondary outcome. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months after placement of the retainer until completion of the study. Data were analyzed using survival analysis including Cox regression; sensitivity analysis was carried out after data imputation for subjects lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 16 years; interquartile range, 2; range, 12-47 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemical or light curing. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, the median follow-up period was 2.19 years (range, 0.003-3.64 years), and 16 patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 47 of 110 (42.7%) and 55 of 110 (50.0%) retainers had some type of failure with chemically cured and light-cured adhesive, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.70; P = 0.47). There was weak evidence that age is a significant predictor for lingual retainer failures (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.08). Adhesive remnant index scoring was possible for only 66 of the 102 (64.7%) failures and did not differ between composites (Fisher exact test, P = 0.16). No serious harm was observed other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated no evidence that survival of mandibular lingual retainers differs between chemically and light-cured adhesives. The overall failure rate was 46.4%; however, this included any type of failure, which may have exaggerated the overall failure rate.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues.

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (ß = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials.

Split-mouth designs first appeared in dental clinical trials in the late sixties. The main advantage of this study design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as the patients act as their own controls. Cited disadvantages relate to carry-across effects, contamination or spilling of the effects of one intervention to another, period effects if the interventions are delivered at different time periods, difficulty in finding similar comparison sites within patients and the requirement for more complex data analysis. Although some additional thought is required when utilizing a split-mouth design, the efficiency of this design is attractive, particularly in orthodontic clinical studies where carry-across, period effects and dissimilarity between intervention sites does not pose a problem. Selection of the appropriate research design, intervention protocol and statistical method accounting for both the reduced variability and potential clustering effects within patients should be considered for the trial results to be valid.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals.

OBJECTIVES: A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS: Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS: The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Risk indicators of coronal and root caries in Greek middle aged adults and senior citizens.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is the result of a complex interplay of multiple determinants which may change overtime. Therefore, periodic surveys of caries experience and redetermination of the risk indicators of the disease are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and severity of coronal and root caries in Greeks aged 35-44 and 65-74-year-old in relation to socio-demographic parameters. Furthermore, trends in coronal caries experience of the 35-44-year-olds were investigated. METHODS: A sample of 1188 35-44-year-old and 1093 65-74-year-old individuals was selected in 2005 according to WHO guidelines for national pathfinder surveys. Caries was assessed in dentate subjects using the DMFT, DMFS, RDFS and RCI indices. Socio-demographic data were also collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify the effect of socio-demographic parameters. RESULTS: The mean DMFT and DMFS scores of the adults were 14.06 and 45.78 respectively, while those of the senior citizens were 20.63 and 89.82. Among the 35-44-year-ods, men and those having a higher educational attainment had significantly lower DMFS values (women OR = 1.679, CI: 1.243-2.267 and >12 years of education OR = 0.321, CI: 0.193-0.535 respectively), while educational level was the only predictor of DMFS in senior citizens (OR = 0.279, CI: 0.079-0.992). The mean DMFT score of the 35-44-year-olds has not improved since 1985, but there was a remarkable reduction in the number of DT related to a simultaneous increase in the number of FT. The mean RDFS rose from 0.39 in adults to 2.66 in senior citizens. The mean RDFS score of the middle aged adults was significantly correlated with education (OR = 0.346, CI: 0.180-0.664). The RCI was almost four times greater in seniors (9.73) than in adults (2.53). There were significant differences in caries experience between the surveyed regions. MS and RDS were the major components of the DMFS and RDFS indices respectively, in both age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Caries experience in Greek adults is similar to what is observed in most industrialized countries. The mean DMFT score of the 35-44-year-olds has not improved since 1985, but a great improvement in restorative care has been observed. Senior citizens had a high percentage of untreated coronal and root surfaces. Region and education were the strongest predictors of caries experience. An increase in oral care utilization and effective prevention over the whole lifespan are needed to improve the dental health of the Greek adult population.

Oral health status of elderly hospitalised psychiatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the oral health status of an elderly mentally ill population hospitalised in a psychogeriatric ward in Athens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured interview recorded sociodemographic and dental data, and an oral examination recorded the status of oral tissues and the existing dentures. The patients' medical records were examined by a hospital's physician. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven patients with a mean age of 73 years participated in the study. Almost half of them suffered from schizophrenia. Forty percent were completely edentulous but only 38.6% of them used a pair of dentures. The dentate had an average of 12.9 teeth, 50.7% of them had at least one decayed tooth, 44.8% needed at least one extraction, and only 26.7% had filled teeth. The dental hygiene was poor in 83.6% of the patients. More than 60% of the dentures had a defect. Multiple regression analyses showed that increasing age and dementia were significantly related to fewer remaining teeth, and the use of atypical antipsychotics was related to fewer caried teeth. CONCLUSION: The oral health of the elderly psychiatric patients was very poor. Access to dental care should improve, and the health care staff should be trained to identify oral problems.

Loss of natural dentition: multi-level effects among a geriatric population.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of edentulousness on residual ridge volume, denture stomatitis (DS), as well as oral health behaviours among geriatric denture-wearers. BACKGROUND: Residual ridge resorption (RRR) is the primary intraoral complication of complete edentulism, but individual variation among geriatric patients has been observed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collection relied upon a 10-year retrospective chart review of all complete denture-wearing geriatric patients presenting at the Removable Prosthodontics Clinic, Dental School of Athens, between 1993 and 2002. Analyses relied on descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate methods based on ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 873 records of geriatric patients (age mean = 72; median = 70; range = 65-95) comprised our analytical sample. Subjects' mean (SD) time since edentulation was 7.7 (10.2) years. Eleven percent were diagnosed with temporomandibular disorder (TMD). While 28% of patients reported cleaning their dentures at least daily, 6% presented with denture stomatitis (DS). Each added year of edentulism increased the odds of mandibular RRR: OR (95% CI) = 1.05 (1.03, 1.07). Nightly denture wear was the strongest risk factor for DS. Finally, independent of age and sex, each year of being edentulous increased the odds of presenting with TMD: OR (95% CI) = 1.03 (1.01, 1.05). CONCLUSION: Time since edentulation was strongly associated with mandibular but not maxillary RRR, as well as TMD development.

What's in a title? An assessment of whether randomized controlled trial in a title means that it is one.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether studies published in orthodontic journals and titled as randomized clinical trials are truly randomized clinical trials. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification. METHODS: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Angle Orthodontist, Journal of Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, World Journal of Orthodontics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were hand searched for clinical trials labeled in the title as randomized from 1979 to July 2011. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, and univariable and multivariable examinations of statistical associations via ordinal logistic regression modeling (proportional odds model). RESULTS: One hundred twelve trials were identified. Of the included trials, 33 (29.5%) were randomized clinical trials, 52 (46.4%) had an unclear status, and 27 (24.1%) were not randomized clinical trials. In the multivariable analysis among the included journal types, year of publication, number of authors, multicenter trial, and involvement of statistician were significant predictors of correctly classifying a study as a randomized clinical trial vs unclear and not a randomized clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: From 112 clinical trials in the orthodontic literature labeled as randomized clinical trials, only 29.5% were identified as randomized clinical trials based on clear descriptions of appropriate random number generation and allocation concealment. The type of journal, involvement of a statistician, multicenter trials, greater numbers of authors, and publication year were associated with correct clinical trial classification. This study indicates the need of clear and accurate reporting of clinical trials and the need for educating investigators on randomized clinical trial methodology.