Do authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies assess the methodologies of the included primary studies? An empirical examination of methodological tool use in the literature.

BACKGROUND: The procedures used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews of observational dental studies have not been investigated. The purpose of this research was to examine the way that authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry conducted the methodological assessment of those primary studies. In the present article, we aimed to assess the characteristics and the level of reporting of tools used to assess the methodologies of these reviews. METHODS: We searched Scopus and the Web of Science from their inceptions to June 2023 for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies published in dentistry. Document selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate and independently by two authors. In a random sample of 10% of the systematic reviews, there was an agreement of more than 80% between the reviewers; data selection and extraction were conducted in the remaining 90% of the sample by one author. Data on the article and systematic review characteristics were extracted and recorded for descriptive reporting. RESULTS: The search in the two databases resulted in the inclusion of 3,214 potential documents. After the elimination of duplicates and the application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 399 systematic reviews were identified and included. A total of 368 systematic reviews reported a methodological tool, of which 102 used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, 76 systematic reviews stated the use of a modified methodological tool. Information about the approach of assessing the methodological quality or RoB of primary studies but reporting no tool or tool name occurred in 25 reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry reported the tools used to assess the methodological quality or RoB of the included primary studies. Modifying existing tools to meet the individual characteristics of various studies should be considered.

A case study evaluating the effect of clustering, publication bias, and heterogeneity on the meta-analysis estimates in implant dentistry.

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.

Overview of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions: A comprehensive literature analysis.

The aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal-orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR-2 tool (the acronym is derived from 'a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews') to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR-2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta-analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched.

Education and learning: potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis: some critical reading suggestions for junior doctors.

Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that doctors will likely select this type of study to answer clinical questions. In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles.

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality. METHODS: Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%. RESULTS: A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores. DISCUSSION: Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores. CONCLUSION: In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Reporting of flow diagrams in randomised controlled trials published in periodontology and implantology: a survey.

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.

Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study.

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist. METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12. RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items. CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SRs with meta-analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p-value was 5%. RESULTS: Forty-one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores. CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta-analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta-analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality.

ASSESSMENT OF THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTING DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (dPROs) IN A SAMPLE OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS ON ROOT COVERAGE PROCEDURES.

OBJECTIVE: Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are important for understanding the impact of proposed therapies on patients' oral health. The aims of the present study were to investigate the frequency of the reporting of dPROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of root coverage procedures and to assess associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of the dPROs. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for RCTs of root coverage procedures in March 16, 2022 and articles published up to March 2022 were included. Information on the types of outcomes and the characteristics of the studies/articles were extracted and reported as frequencies and percentages. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between the study/article characteristics and the reporting level of dPROs. RESULTS: The search initially identified 387 articles, and after applying the eligibility criteria, 135 articles reporting 135 RCTs were included. A combination of dPROs and non-dPROs was reported in 61.5% of the selected trials, while 37.8% of the trials reported only non-dPROs. Pain or discomfort was the most frequently reported dPRO (n = 58, 43% of the RCTs). More recently published RCTs reported more dPROs. The country of the first author (odds ratio [OR]: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.76-10.95; P < .01), protocol registration (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.83; P = .02), and RCT type (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17-0.83; P = .02) were significantly associated with the reporting level of the dPROs. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers in recent years seem to be paying more attention to the importance of dPROs. RCTs in which the first authors were from developed countries, registered trials, and RCTs with a parallel design were more likely to report dPROs than RCTs with first authors from developing countries, unregistered trials, and RCTs with a split-mouth design.

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of in-vitro studies, like any other study, can be of heterogeneous quality. The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases published up to January 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using a modified "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2) instrument. The 16 items, in the form of questions, were answered with yes, no, or py (partial yes). Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between systematic review characteristics and AMSTAR-2 percent score. Overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews was rated, based on weaknesses identified in critical and non-critical AMSTAR-2 items. RESULTS: The search retrieved 908 potential documents, and after following the eligibility criteria, 185 systematic reviews were included. The most researched topics were ceramics and dental bonding. The overall rating for the confidence in the results was critically low in 126 (68%) systematic reviews. There was high variability in the response among the AMSTAR-2 items (0% to 75% positively answered). The univariable analyses indicated dental specialty (p = 0.03), number of authors (coef: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.26, 3.47, p = 0.02), and year of publication (coef: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.90, 3.38, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the AMSTAR-2 percent score. Whereas, in the multivariable analysis only specialty (p = 0.01) and year of publication (coef: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.35, p < 0.001) remained significant. Among specialties, endodontics achieved the highest AMSTAR-2 percent score. CONCLUSIONS: The methods of systematic reviews of in vitro dental studies were suboptimal. Year of publication and dental specialty were associated with AMSTAR-2 scores. The overall rating of the confidence in the results was low and critically low for most systematic reviews.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.

AIM: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis. METHODOLOGY: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item-'Yes'-when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'-when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'-when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'. CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high-quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

Methodological quality assessment criteria for the evaluation of laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within the specialty of Endodontology: A development protocol.

High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.

COMBINATION OF Nd:YAG AND Er:YAG LASERS MIGHT IMPROVE PERIODONTAL PROBING DEPTHS AND CLINICAL ATTACHMENT LEVELS, BUT THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IS VERY WEAK.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Estrin NE, Moraschini V, Zhang Y, Romanos GE, Sculean A, Miron RJ. Combination of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG lasers in non-surgical periodontal therapy: a systematic review of randomized clinical studies. Lasers Med Sci. 2022 Apr 1. doi: 10.1007/s10103-022-03548-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35364744. SOURCE OF FUNDING: There was no statement on the source of funding. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.

BACKGROUND: To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. METHODS: Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. RESULTS: We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. CONCLUSION: Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.

Watching the watchers: A report on the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by editors and editorial board members of dental journals.

Reporting potential conflicts of interest (COIs) by all parties involved in the publication process is of pivotal importance to increase trust in research. The present study assessed the disclosure of potential COIs of editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals. From 28 April 2021 to 05 May 2021, the websites of 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) were scrutinized to obtain information on the reporting of COI forms of editors and board members, and whether these individuals reported their detailed curriculum vitae (CV). The COI forms were assessed to understand the potential financial and non-financial COIs of editors and board members. Only 11 (12.1%) journals reported COI forms of editors-in-chief (EICs) and associate editors (AEs). No journal reported a COI form of the editorial board members. Of the 100 editors (EICs plus AEs), 25 (25.%) declared connections to for-profit organisations, and seven (7%) to not-for-profit organisations. Five (5%) editors (all AEs) reported non-financial COIs, and 35 (35%) editors reported nothing to declare. Nine (9.9%) journals reported a short CV of editors, which were not informative regarding potential COIs. Editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals should report in more detail their potential COIs.

Prediction intervals should be included in meta-analyses published in dentistry.

This focus article aims to highlight the value of reporting prediction intervals (PIs) in random effects meta-analysis and to assess the prevalence of PI-reporting in periodontology and implant dentistry meta-analyses. We searched in the PubMed database for meta-analyses published in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. We selected meta-analyses related to primary outcomes with at least three trials. Additionally, we extracted information on the type of the meta-analysis model (fixed or random) and whether the random effects meta-analyses included PIs in addition to the 95% confidence intervals. Three-hundred and forty-nine meta-analyses were found in 94 systematic reviews. Two-hundred and sixty-three (75.4%) subgroup and full meta-analyses used the random-effects model, 81 (23.2%) used fixed-effect methods, and 5 (1.4%) did not specify the model used. In 75 systematic reviews, we found 231 meta-analyses with three or more trials (173 full meta-analyses and 58 subgroup meta-analyses). Only one systematic review reported PIs. Interpretation of the results of random effects meta-analyses which ignore heterogeneity can be misleading. Heterogeneity should be explored, and two common approaches include subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Random effects meta-analyses should include PIs because they convey the extent of heterogeneity in treatment effects across studies in a clinically relevant context.

Meta-research publications in dentistry: a review.

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta-research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta-research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta-research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta-research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta-research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta-research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research.

LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY MAY REDUCE THE RISK OF SEVERE ORAL MUCOSITIS IN PATIENTS RECEIVING CHEMOTHERAPY OR RADIOTHERAPY.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Peng et al. Low-level laser therapy in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020 Oct;130(4):387-397.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.05.014. Epub 2020 Jun 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Sichuan University Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund (grant No. 19 XJ0008) TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.