Family environment and traumatic dental injuries in adolescents.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: No comprehensive assessment of the influence of the home environment on traumatic dental injuries (TDI) has been conducted to date. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between family environment and TDI among adolescents from East London. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from 646 adolescents who participated in phase III of the Research with East London Adolescents Community Health Survey (RELACHS). Family environment was measured with four indicators (non-nuclear family, discordant parental relationship and levels of parental support and parental punishment) measured through a self-administered questionnaire. Clinical examinations were performed for TDI, overjet and lip coverage. Logistic regression was used to test the crude and adjusted (controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors) association of each family environment characteristic with TDI prevalence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of adolescents were from non-nuclear families, and 52.3% reported a discordant parental relationship. The mean score for parental support was -0.01 (SD: 0.90, range: -0.11 to 0.08), and the mean parental punishment score was 0.03 (SD: 0.86, range: -0.04 to 0.10). Adolescents from non-nuclear families had 1.63 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.53) greater odds of having TDI than those from nuclear families. However, this association was fully attenuated after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. The other three indicators of family environment were not associated with TDI either in crude or adjusted regression models. CONCLUSION: This study found weak evidence of an association between family environment and TDI.

Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?

INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to assess the registration of orthodontic systematic reviews in PROSPERO. METHOD: Seven databases were searched for orthodontic systematic reviews published in 2012-2016. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, descriptive statistics, followed by chi-square/Fisher exact tests were calculated. Finally, bivariable/multivariable regression with relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used. RESULTS: A total of 182 orthodontic systematic reviews were identified, 37 (20.3%) of which were registered in PROSPERO, with registration rates ranging from 4.3% in 2012 to 37.0% in 2016. Differences in review registration were found according to publication year, geographic origin, multicentre status, funding, and journal category. After controlling for confounders, each additional year was associated with increased registration probability (RR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.19-1.93). Reviews from South America were more likely to be registered than reviews from Europe (RR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.06-2.11). Finally, reviews published in orthodontic specialty journals were more likely to be registered than reviews in general dentistry journals (RR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.02-3.49). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori, although improvement signs have been seen since the initiation of PROSPERO.

Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality.

OBJECTIVES: A priori registration of systematic review protocols in international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) can help reduce selective reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the association between registration of orthodontic systematic reviews in PROSPERO and review quality with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Seven databases were searched for systematic reviews with/without meta-analysis in orthodontics published between 2012 and 2016. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, the quality of identified reviews was assessed in duplicate with the AMSTAR tool. Descriptive statistics of medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and chi-square/Fisher exact tests were calculated. Univariable/multivariable linear regression modeling was implemented to assess the effect of review registration on %AMSTAR score at α of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 182 orthodontic systematic reviews were identified, 37 (20.3%) of which were registered. Considerable differences were seen in AMSTAR between registered (median = 86.4%; IQR = 77.3-95.5%) and nonregistered reviews (median = 72.7%; IQR = 59.1-81.8%). After adjustment, registration in PROSPERO was associated with an average increase in %AMSTAR score of 6.6% (95% confidence interval = 1.0-12.3%). CONCLUSION: Although only a small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori in PROSPERO, registered reviews were of higher quality than nonregistered reviews.