Degree of cure of orthodontic composite attachments underneath aligners.

The aim of this study was to assess the percentage degree of cure (DC%) of 2-mm-thick resin composite attachments used for aligner treatment. Three types of aligner - two thermoformed aligners (Clear Aligner [CLA], polyethylene terephthalate glycol modified; and Invisalign [INV], polyester urethane) and a three-dimensional-printed aligner (Graphy TC-85DAC [GRP], an acrylate-methacrylate copolymer) - were selected, along with two universal resin composites (3M Filtek Universal [FTU] and Charisma Topaz ONE [CTO]). Samples of each composite were placed under each aligner, and the degree of cure of each composite was evaluated on the top (facing the aligner) and the bottom (facing the substrate) attachment surfaces after curing. Five specimens were used per combination of aligner and composite, and an additional group of composites irradiated without aligners served as the control. The DC% measurements were performed using attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. The DC% across the aligners were (median values) 33.8%-44.8% for CLA, 33.6%-40.8% for INV, 32.8%-40.6% for GRP, and 40.0%-51.7% for the control group. The DC% values of the attachments cured under any aligner were significantly lower than that of the corresponding control, with the values recorded on the top surfaces being 6% higher than those on the bottom surfaces after adjusting for aligner group and composite type.

Gender-specific treatment effects and outcomes reported in orthodontic research. A cross-sectional empirical study.

AIM: To identify practices of assessment of gender effects in research articles in orthodontics and detect whether there were significant differences in the treatment effects on outcomes according to gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four major orthodontic journals were sought over a 3-year period to identify publications which included assessment of gender effects on outcomes in their reporting. Data were extracted on the following characteristics: journal, year of publication, region of authorship, and study design. For the studies including reporting of gender effects, whether a significant effect existed was further documented. Additionally, for these studies, data were extracted on population, sample size per gender, treatment, comparison, outcome type, and nature and whether gender analysis was based on subgroup testing or included as a main effect. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, univariable, and multivariable regression models were utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 718 research articles were eligible for inclusion out of a pool of 1,132 screened articles. Of those, 95 reported on any type of analysis on gender effects (95/718; 13.2%). In the 95 studies that reported assessment of gender effects, it was clear that the majority did not detect significant gender-related differences across the documented outcomes (range of frequency distribution for significant gender differences across all outcomes: 0-50%). Twenty-two articles overall (22/95; 23.2%) described a significant gender effect classified by outcome, 12 favoring female and 10 favoring male participants. Patterns of efficacy and adverse outcomes were schemed either favoring female (root resorption: 4/10; 40.0%, periodontal outcomes: 3/11; 27.3%) or male (cephalometric/growth changes following orthodontic treatment: 4/17; 23.5%) patients across the 22 studies with significant effects. Appropriately designed and adequately powered statistical analyses, with gender effect assessment as a main effect in a multivariable regression model was associated with 6.53 times higher odds for identifying significant gender effects (OR = 6.53; 95% CI: 2.15, 19.8; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A very small proportion of research studies included gender effect assessment in their analyses. Of those, a quarter described significant effects. Nevertheless, careful analysis planning and strategies should be prioritized to allow for any meaningful interpretation.

Surface alterations and compound release from aligner attachments in vitro.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the alterations in morphology, roughness, and composition of the surfaces of a conventional and a flowable composite attachment engaged with aligners, and to evaluate the release of resin monomers and their derivatives in an aqueous environment. METHODS: Zirconia tooth-arch frames (n = 20) and corresponding thermoformed PET-G aligners with bonded attachments comprising two composite materials (universal-C and flowable-F) were fabricated. The morphological features (stereomicroscopy), roughness (optical profilometry), and surface composition (ATR-FTIR) of the attachments were examined before and after immersion in water. To simulate intraoral use, the aligners were removed and re-seated to the frames four times per day for a 7-day immersion period. After testing, the eluents were analyzed by LC-MS/MS targeting the compounds Bis-GMA, UDMA, 2-HEMA, TEGDMA and BPA and by LC-HRMS for suspect screening of the leached dental material compounds and their degradation products. RESULTS: After testing, abrasion-induced defects were found on attachment surfaces such as scratches, marginal cracks, loss of surface texturing, and fractures. The morphological changes and debonding rate were greater in F. Comparisons (before-after testing) revealed a significantly lower Sc roughness parameter in F. The surface composition of the aligners after testing showed minor changes from the control, with insignificant differences in the degree of C = C conversion, except for few cases with strong evidence of hydrolytic degradation. Targeted analysis results revealed a significant difference in the compounds released between Days 1 and 7 in both materials. Insignificant differences were found when C was compared with F in both timeframes. Several degradation products were detected on Day 7, with a strong reduction in the concentration of the targeted compounds. CONCLUSIONS: The use of aligners affects the surface characteristics and degradation rate of composite attachments in an aqueous environment, releasing monomers, and monomer hydrolysates within 1-week simulated use.

The minimal important difference in orthodontic treatment duration: a survey across adult patients.

BACKGROUND: The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration. METHODS: We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19-24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

Treatment outcome of partial pulpotomy using two different calcium silicate materials in mature permanent teeth with symptoms of irreversible pulpitis: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcome of partial pulpotomy by comparing MTA Angelus and Total Fill BC, as pulpotomy agents, in mature teeth with deep caries and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis. METHODOLOGY: The study was designed as a parallel-two arm, double-blind, randomized superiority clinical trial registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04870398). Symptomatic mature permanent teeth with deep caries fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly treated using either MTA Angelus or Total Fill BC. A partial pulpotomy was performed and following complete haemostasis, the capping material was placed over the remaining pulp tissue and a postoperative periapical radiograph was taken. Clinical and radiographic follow-up evaluation was performed for a median time of 2 years, whereas levels of pain intensity were evaluated preoperatively and for 7 days after intervention using Visual Analogue Scale. For the primary outcome (failure/success of treatment), the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the capping materials were plotted and a log-rank test for equality of survivor functions was applied. A multivariable random effects Cox Regression model was also applied. For the secondary outcome (postoperatively reported pain), a multivariable mixed effects ordinal logistic regression was structured. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven teeth in 123 patients underwent partial pulpotomy using randomly either MTA Angelus (N = 74) or Total Fill BC (n = 63). The percentage failure for MTA Angelus and Total Fill BC was 10.8% (8/74) and 17.5% (11/63), respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant [adjusted HR: 1.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 4.91; p = .23]. Weak evidence was found that secondary caries involvement may impose a 3.54 times greater hazard for treatment failure (adjusted HR: 3.54; 95% CI: 1.00, 12.51; p = .05). For each passing minute of procedural bleeding control, there was also a 57% higher hazard for treatment failure (adjusted HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.99, 2.48; p = .05). The odds for higher postoperative pain were 4.73 times greater for the Total Fill BC compared to MTA Angelus (adjusted OR: 4.73; 95% CI: 2.31, 9.66; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both materials exhibited similar and favourable outcome rates after partial pulpotomy in teeth with deep caries and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis. Total Fill BC was associated with a higher level of postoperative pain intensities.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist.

AIM: To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of animal studies within the field of endodontics against the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 checklist and to investigate the association between the quality of reporting and several characteristics of the selected studies. METHODOLOGY: Fifty animal studies related to endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database with publication dates from January 2017 to December 2021. For each study, a score of '1' was given when the item of the PRIASE 2021 checklist was fully reported, whereas a score of '0' was given when an item was not reported; when the item was inadequately or partially reported, a score of '0.5' was given. Based on the overall scores allocated to each manuscript, they were allocated into three categories of reporting quality: low, moderate and high. Associations between study characteristics and reporting quality scores were also analysed. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to describe the data and determine associations. The probability value of .05 was selected as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Based on the overall scores, four (8%) and 46 (92%) of the animal studies evaluated were categorized as 'High' and 'Moderate' reporting quality, respectively. A number of items were adequately reported in all studies related to background (Item 4a), relevance of methods/results (7a) and interpretation of images (11e), whereas only one item related to changes in protocol (6d) was not reported in any. No associations were confirmed between reporting quality scores and number of authors, origin of the corresponding author, journal of publication (endodontic specialty vs. non- specialty), impact factor or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Animal studies published in the specialty of endodontics were mostly of 'moderate' quality in terms of the quality of reporting. Adherence to the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will enhance the reporting of animal studies in the expectation that all future publications will be high quality.

Clinical evaluation of different alveolar ridge preservation techniques after tooth extraction: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of different alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) techniques on dimensional alterations after tooth extraction, based on clinical measurements. BACKGROUND: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a common procedure in every day clinical practice, when dental implants are involved in treatment planning. In ARP procedures, a bone grafting material is combined with a socket sealing (SS) material in order to compensate the alveolar ridge dimensional alterations after tooth extraction. Xenograft and allograft are the most frequently used bone grafts in ARP, while free gingival graft (FGG), collagen membrane, and collagen sponge (CS) usually applied as SS materials. The evidence comparing xenograft and allograft directly in ARP procedure is scarce. In addition, FGG is usually combined with xenograft as SS material, while the evidence combing allograft with FGG is absent. Moreover, CS could probably be an alternative choice in ARP as SS material, since it has been used in previous studies but more clinical trials are required to evaluate its effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients were randomly assigned in four treatment groups: (A) freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) covered with collagen sponge (CS), (B) FDBA covered with free gingival graft (FGG), (C) demineralized bovine bone mineral xenograft (DBBM) covered with FGG, and (D) FGG alone. Clinical measurements were performed immediately after tooth extraction and 4 months later. The related outcomes pertained to both vertical and horizontal assessment of bone loss. RESULTS: Overall, groups A, B, and C presented significantly less vertical and horizontal bone resorption compared to group D. No statistically significant difference was observed between allograft and xenograft, except for the vertical bone resorption at the buccal central site, where xenograft showed marginally statistically significantly reduced bone loss compared to allograft (group C vs group B: adjusted ß coef: 1.07 mm; 95%CI: 0.01, 2.10; p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed in hard tissue dimensions when CS and FGG were applied over FDBA. CONCLUSIONS: No differences between FDBA and DBBM could practically be confirmed. In addition, CS and FGG were equally effective socket sealing materials when combined with FDBA, regarding bone resorption. More RCTs are needed to compare the histological differences between FDBA and DBBM and the effect of CS and FGG on soft tissue dimensional changes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Xenograft and allograft were equally efficient in ARP 4 months after tooth extraction in horizontal level. Xenograft maintained the mid-buccal site of the socket marginally better than the allograft, in vertical level. FGG and CS were equally efficient as SS materials regarding the hard tissue dimensional alterations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration Number: NCT04934813 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Short fiber-reinforced composite resins as post-and-core materials for endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As the use of traditional posts has been associated with complications and failure outcomes, the introduction of novel materials and minimally invasive dentistry has shifted toward the use of composite resin post-and-core restorations for endodontically treated teeth. As a further process, to improve stress absorption environment in restored teeth, the invention of short fiber-reinforced composite resins (SFRCs) as post-and-core restorations has recently emerged. However, evidence regarding its performance is still scarce, and a synthesis of existing data is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the performance of SFRC post-and-core restorations, regarding fracture resistance and failure mode and considering both cyclic and static loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search in 5 databases was conducted up to August 2022, and the protocol of the study was registered a priori. The search terms included "fiber reinforced composite," "core build-up," and "post." Studies were considered if they compared SFRC restorations with other types of conventional posts and teeth restored using bulk fill composite resin. The internal validity of the studies was assessed by using a custom-made risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 1271 records were identified, of which 13 were considered for full-text assessment. Eight were ultimately included, all being in vitro studies, and 7 of them were deemed eligible for quantitative syntheses. The results varied considerably across studies with divergent fracture resistance values and percentages of catastrophic failure being reported. Standard depth (6 mm) SFRCs presented fewer repetitions until fracture on average, compared with the individually made FRCs (3 studies: mean difference (MD): -4062; 95% CI: -6148, -1975; P<.001) under cyclic loading. Under static loading, SFRCs (standard depth) presented a nearly 300 N lower fracture force compared with that of intact teeth, (3 studies: MD: -297; 95%CI: -378, -216; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the laboratory fracture and failure performance of SFRCs is limited, and future studies should incorporate more standardized experimental conditions, as well as SFRCs with limited sacrifice of tooth substrate within the root canal of endodontically treated teeth.

Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study.

AIM: To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined. RESULTS: A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (ß-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected.

In vivo aging-induced surface roughness alterations of Invisalign® and 3D-printed aligners.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the surface roughness of in-house 3D-printed orthodontic aligners compared with Invisalign® appliances, both retrieved as well as in the 'as-received' control status. DESIGN: An in vitro study following intra-oral material aging. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve clinically used Invisalign® appliances and the same number of 3D-printed aligners, without involvement of attachments, were obtained from a respective number of patients. A similar number of 'as-received' aligners, of each material, were used as control (CON) groups. METHOD: Four groups of materials were examined: A = Invisalign® CON; B = Invisalign® used; C = 3D-printed CON; and D = 3D-printed used. Optical profilometry was employed to examine the following surface roughness parameters: amplitude parameters Sa, Sq and Sz and functional parameters Sc and Sv. Descriptive statistics and quantile regression modeling were conducted, and the level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: Intra-oral exposure of 3D-printed aligners was significantly associated with increase in all tested parameters (P < 0.001 at all occasions). Significant differences were detected in the retrieved 3D-printed aligners compared with Invisalign® retrieved, with the exception of Sz. The respective effect sizes (median differences) were as follows: Sa: 169 nm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 89-248, P < 0.001; Sq: 315 nm, 95% CI = 152-477, P < 0.001; Sc: 233 nm3/nm2, 95% CI = 131-335, P < 0.001; and Sv: 43 nm3/nm2, 95% CI = 17-68, P = 0.002. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, we concluded that surface roughness differences existed between 3D-printed aligners and Invisalign® in the retrieved status, as well as between the control and retrieved 3D-printed groups.

Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?

AIM: Spin refers to reporting, interpretation and extrapolation related distortion or manipulation of the findings of a study. The aim of this report was to identify the prevalence and extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) including meta-analyses in the scientific field of Endodontics. METHODOLOGY: A sensitive and inclusive search strategy in PubMed was developed to identify eligible SRs with meta-analyses in Endodontics, supplemented by an electronic search within 3 major specialty journals, from January 1, 2010 to April 16, 2022. Inclusion and extent of spin was recorded, per domain and following issues related to misleading reporting, interpretation and inappropriate extrapolation of meta-analyses' findings. Association of spin with publication characteristics such as year, journal type, number of authors, continent of authorship, funding, primary study design and significance of the outcome was explored. RESULTS: A hundred and eighty-six SRs with meta-analyses were retrieved, and inclusion of spin was detected in 125 abstracts (67.2%), for one or more domains. The majority of abstracts were affected by more than one types of spin (91/125; 72.8%). There was evidence that abstracts of meta-analyses of non-significant findings had 60% lower odds for inclusion of spin (Odds ratio, OR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.19, 0.83; p= 0.04), after adjusting for year, journal type and number of authors. CONCLUSIONS: Misleading reporting and misinterpretation of findings in abstracts of meta-analyses is evident in endodontic research. Efforts should be reinforced to increase awareness within the scientific and academic community to improve adherence to transparent reporting and interpretation.

Genetic taste sensitivity and dental caries in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PROP test (6-n-propylthiouracil) for the identification of genetic sensitivity to caries in young individuals has emerged as a useful tool for caries risk assessment. AIM: To systematically appraise available evidence on the association between genetic taste sensitivity, as detected by (PROP), and caries. DESIGN: Seven databases, as of March 2020, were searched. Search terms included 'caries', 'taste predisposition', 'PROP'. Risk of bias assessment was performed using ROBINS-I tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to synthesize data, and pooled effects were estimated through standardized mean differences (SMDs) and associated confidence Intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Of 92 articles initially retrieved, 12 were eligible for inclusion. Seven contributed to the meta-analyses. All were cross-sectional studies, with moderate-to-serious risk of bias. The non-tasters of PROP exhibited a significantly higher value for the DMFT compared with tasters (SMD: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.56; P < .001), whereas the association for the DMFS was SMD: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.66, 2.01; P < .001 (non-tasters versus super-tasters). The quality of evidence was very low overall. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, non-tasters to PROP exhibited higher caries experience, with subsequent clinical implications for follow-up and management of the 'high-susceptibility' individuals.

Gender disparity in speakers of the European Orthodontic Society conferences held between 2015 and 2020: a cross-sectional report.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the representation of female scientists as speakers of blindly selected oral presentations or invited speakers in the latest European Orthodontic Society (EOS) conferences between 2015 and 2020. To examine the association with a number of study- and author-related characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Abstract books and programmes of the EOS conferences held between 2015 and 2020, were electronically searched to identify the gender of all speakers. The following predictor variables were assessed: year, continent of authorship, number of centres, number of authors involved, study design, study topic, and presentation as a WJB Houston Award nominee. RESULTS: A total of 312 oral presentations were recorded with almost even distribution of female/male gender. In the majority of oral presentations, a European-origin speaker affiliation was confirmed (208/312; 66.7%), with a relatively equal representation of women (P = 0.05). Seniority in authorship of oral presentations belonged to male scientists (209/312; 67%). Furthermore, a total of 84 invited speakers were identified, of which only 15 (17.9%) were female, indicating a substantial gender gap. No more than four women were invited to lecture annually, compared to a minimum of 10 male scientists. Overall, a significant difference was recorded for the odds of a female scientist to be invited as a speaker in the EOS conference (range of odds across years: 0.20-0.36), compared to the odds for conducting an oral presentation in the same context and timescale (range of odds across years: 0.75-1.45) (Mantel-Haenszel test for homogeneity, P-value < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Findings were based solely on the annual orthodontic conference of the EOS, without further insights on national conferences, or identification of wide-range timescale effects. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Gender disparity related to invited speakers at the EOS 2015-20 annual conferences was unequivocally confirmed. Nevertheless, gender differences were not identified in oral presentations. Firm efforts to ensure female scientist's voice is equally represented are needed including a move from theory to practice.

Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021.

AIM: To assess the extent of publication bias assessment in systematic reviews (SRs) across the orthodontic literature over the last 12 years and to identify the appropriateness of assessment and association with publication characteristics, including year of publication, journal, searching practices within unpublished literature or attempts to contact primary study authors and others. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant articles, since January 2010, until November 2021. We recorded practices interrelated with publication bias assessment, at the SR and meta-analysis level. These pertained to reporting strategies for searching within unpublished literature, attempts to communicate with authors of primary studies and formal assessment of publication bias either graphically or statistically. Potential associations between publication bias assessment practices with variables such as journal, year, methodologist involvement, and others were sought at the meta-analysis level. RESULTS: A sum of 289 SRs were ultimately included, with 139 of those incorporating at least one available mathematical synthesis. Efforts to search within unpublished literature were reported in 191 out of 289 Reviews (66.1%), while efforts to communicate with primary study authors were recorded for 150 of 289 of those (51.9%). An appropriate strategy plan to address issues of publication bias, conditional on the number of studies available and the methodology plan reported, was followed in 78 of the 139 meta-analyses (56.1%). Formal publication bias assessment was actually reported in 35 of 139 meta-analyses (25.2%), while only half of those (19/35; 54.3%) followed an appropriately established methodology. Ten of the latter 19 studies detected the presence of publication bias (52.6%). Predictor variables of appropriate publication bias assessment did not reveal any significant effects. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate methodology and rigorous practices for appraisal of publication bias are underreported in SRs within the orthodontic literature since 2010 and up-to-date, while other established methodologies including search strategies for unpublished data or communication with authors appear currently suboptimal.

Detection Methods for Early Caries Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim was to appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo. Five databases of published and unpublished research were searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2019. Search terms included "early caries" and "caries detection." Inclusion criteria involved diagnostic test accuracy studies for early caries detection in permanent and primary teeth. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate. The review protocol was a priori registered in the Open Science Framework. Of the initially 22,964 search results, 51 articles were included. For permanent teeth, when histologic examination was considered as the reference for occlusal surfaces, the sensitivity (Se) range appeared high for the DIAGNOdent Pen (DD Pen) at 0.81-0.89, followed by ICDAS-II at 0.62-1, DIAGNOdent (DD) at 0.48-1, and bitewing radiography (BW) at 0-0.29. The corresponding specificity (Sp) range was: DD Pen 0.71-0.8, ICDAS-II 0.5-0.84, DD 0.54-1, and BW 0.96-1. When operative intervention served as the reference for occlusal surfaces, again, the DD means valued the most promising results on Se: DD 0.7-0.96 and DD Pen 0.55-0.90, followed by ICDAS-II 0.25-0.93, and BW 0-0.83. The Sp range was: DD 0.54-1, DD Pen 0.71-1, ICDAS-II 0.44-1, and BW 0.6-1. For approximal surfaces, the Se was: BW 0.75-0.83, DD Pen 0.6, and ICDAS-II 0.54; the Sp was: BW 0.6-0.9, DD Pen 0.2, and ICDAS-II 1. For primary teeth, under the reference of histologic assessment, the Se range for occlusal surfaces was: DD 0.55-1, DD Pen 0.63-1, ICDAS-II 0.42-1, and BW 0.31-0.96; the respective Sp was: DD 0.5-1, DD Pen 0.44-1, ICDAS-II 0.61-1, and BW 0.79-0.98. For approximal surfaces, the Se range was: DD Pen 0.58-0.63, ICDAS-II 0.42-0.55, and BW 0.14-0.71. The corresponding Sp range was: DD Pen 0.85-0.87, ICDAS-II 0.73-0.93, and BW 0.79-0.98. Se and Sp values varied, due to the heterogeneity regarding the setting of individual studies. Evidently, robust conclusions cannot be drawn, and different diagnostic means should be used as adjuncts to clinical examination. In permanent teeth, visual examination may be enhanced by DD on occlusal surfaces and BW on approximal surfaces. In primary teeth, DD Pen may serve as a supplementary tool across all surfaces.

Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in Endodontic Research: Evidence over a 5-year period.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of registration of clinical trials in endodontic research and to identify outcome reporting discrepancies between trial registration entries and respective final publications. Associations with publication characteristics, such as journal, year of publication, origin, number of centres and authors, funding and statistical significance of the findings, were also sought. METHODOLOGY: All reports of endodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 4 endodontic specialty and 4 general dental journals from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020 were identified. Trial registration frequency patterns were assessed for the included RCTs, whilst for the ones registered, outcome reporting discrepancies were recorded. Article characteristics such as year of publication, geographic region, number of centres, authors participating in the publication, funding, type of registration and others were identified. Descriptive statistics and univariable/multivariable logistic regression were performed to examine the effect of study characteristics on identified registration practices. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five RCTs were included, with the majority published in specialty journals (121/155; 78.1%). A total of 42.6% of the identified RCTs was registered (66/155), mostly retrospectively (38/66; 57.6%). There was strong evidence that each additional year for more recent publication accounted for 1.42 times higher odds of being registered (adjusted Odds Ratio = 1.42; 95%CI: 1.11, 1.80; p = .004). More than 1/3 of registered RCTs presented outcome reporting discrepancies (24/66; 36.4%), whilst such inconsistencies were almost evenly distributed between primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trial registration policies in endodontic research should be reviewed and active endorsement of prospective registration practices should be prioritized for better clarity and transparency of the disseminated research. Outcome reporting discrepancies shall thus be eliminated, offering increased credibility in research findings and eliminating bias in this respect.

Use of quality assessment tools within systematic reviews in orthodontics during the last decade: looking for a threshold?

OBJECTIVE: To record the prevalence and extent of use of quality assessment/ risk of bias tools in orthodontic systematic reviews and to identify whether systematic reviews authors stipulated a threshold during the evaluation process of the primary studies included in systematic reviews, published across the previous decade and until now. Associations with publication characteristics including the journal of publication, year, the inclusion of a meta-analysis, design of primary studies and others, were sought. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic search within 6 orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews from 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The outcomes of interest pertained to the use, type and extent of quality appraisal/ risk of bias tools utilized as a standard process within the systematic reviews, and also whether a threshold had been stipulated by the systematic reviews authors. Predictor variables included journal, year of publication, geographic region, number of authors, involvement of a methodologist, type of systematic reviews, inclusion of meta-analysis, type/design of primary studies. RESULTS: A total of 262 systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion, with 41 quality appraisal/ risk of bias sets of tools being described either jointly or in isolation. One-third of the systematic reviews of the present sample (88/262; 33.6%) included a threshold, while this was mostly represented by the stipulation of sensitivity analyses in this respect (64/88; 72.8%). Journal of publication (non-Cochrane systematic reviews versus Cochrane systematic reviews: adjusted odds ratio, OR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01, 0.16; P < 0.001) and inclusion of a meta-analysis (adjusted OR: 8.76; 95%CI: 4.18, 18.37; P < 0.001), were identified as significant predictors for preplanning of thresholds. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Quality assessment tools for primary studies are largely used and varied in orthodontic systematic reviews, while a threshold-level has been stipulated in only one third. Additional efforts should be endorsed by the scientific community, to embrace more straightforward adoption of the most rigorous reporting guidelines in this respect.

Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade.

AIM: To assess the representation of female authors in senior and leading positions in orthodontic research publications, as well as the fraction of women participating in the publication reports, for over a decade. In addition, association of women representation in orthodontic research and characteristics such as journal of publication, year, study design/topic, and others, were sought. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic search was performed within three major orthodontic journals, namely the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), and the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE) to identify all types of research articles published within two distinct year cohorts, the 2008-10 and the 2018-20. The outcomes of interest pertained to proportion of women in senior (last) and leading (first) position, and fraction of overall participation in the author list. RESULTS: A total of 2539 articles were eligible for inclusion, with an overall number of contributing authors being 11 608, of which 34.4% were female. For seniority in authorship, 30.1% (312/1038) of the publications within 2018-20 were attributed to female authors, while 25.8% (388/1501) was identified in 2008-10. Publication timeline, geographic region, and thematic topic of publication were determined as significant predictors. For leading (first) authorship, the respective percentages were 44.7% (464/1038) within 2018-20, and 34.7% (521/1501) in 2008-10. Dissemination timeline, geographic region and journal of publication were identified by the multivariable analysis, as revealing evidence of association with female leading publication authorship. Overall, the median proportion of female authors within the author list was 33.0%. CONCLUSIONS: A gender gap related to Orthodontic research publications is persistent, with participation of women either as senior, or as leading authors, being suboptimal. Consistent efforts should be set in place, to facilitate more equal representation of women in research publishing, being supported by academia.

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of and identify factors associated with SPIN in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic search was performed within the contents of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify meta-analyses of studies involving humans, from 1 January 2000 until 31 August 2020. Inclusion of SPIN in the abstract of meta-analyses, defined as misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and inappropriate extrapolation of the findings, was documented. Extent of SPIN and associations with journal and year of publication, type of study, number of authors, continent of authorship, methodologist involvement, funding, and significance of the primary outcome were investigated. RESULTS: One hundred and nine meta-analyses were identified, with the highest proportion being published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO: 31/109; 28.4%). Inclusion of SPIN, in at least one domain, was recorded in nearly half (53/109; 48.6%) of the studies, of which 30 (56.6%) included 2 or more domains of SPIN. Meta-analyses of observational studies presented 1.66 times higher risk for including SPIN in their abstracts compared with interventional ones [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.14, 2.40; P = 0.007], after adjusting for a number of predictors. Studies with a large number of authors (≥6) presented 1.76 times higher risk of SPIN (≥6 versus 1-3: 95% CIs: 1.04, 2.97; Wald test, P = 0.021), conditional on the pre-defined predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Flaws in the reporting and interpretation of the findings of abstracts of meta-analyses, as framed by inclusion of SPIN are persistent in orthodontic research, being more prevalent in meta-analyses of observational studies. Consistent, multidirectional efforts should be endorsed to improve the quality of the disseminated research findings.

Relapse 1 week after bracket removal: a 3D superimpositional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To measure tooth movement 1 week post-treatment and assess potential correlation with changes invoked during treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients were recruited (19 males, 19 females). Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken after bracket debonding (T1) and 1 week later (T2) and digitally scanned. During this period no retention was used. The digital casts were superimposed on structures of the hard palate. Translation and rotation of the first molars, canines, and central incisors were recorded. Additionally, movement of these teeth was assessed from the beginning (T0) until the end of treatment (T1). The correlation between the post-treatment relapse (T1-T2) and tooth movement during treatment (T0-T1) was investigated via the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Relapse was detected and reflected changes in tooth position during treatment. For the first molars (right, left) the correlation between treatment and post-treatment tooth movement was evident in the transverse direction (r = -0.38, P = 0.020; r = -0.32, P = 0.052), tipping (r = -0.40, P = 0.015; r = -0.34, P = 0.034) and the antero-posterior direction (r = -0.31, P = 0.061; r = -0.36, P = 0.027); for the canines (right and left), as rotation around their long axis (r = -0.55, P = 0.003; r = -0.58, P = 0.002); for central incisors (right and left) in the antero-posterior direction (r = -0.55, P = 0.000; r = -0.48, P = 0.03), transverse direction (r = -0.43, P = 0.07; r = -0.32, P = 0.047), and rotation around their long axis (r = -0.53, P = 0.001; r = -0.28, P = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: Post-treatment changes in tooth position were mostly related to tooth movement during treatment. The reported correlations may help clinicians predict short-term relapse, evaluate long-term retention need, and design individualized retention schemes.