Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reporting of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach in systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in pediatric dentistry that reported the certainty of the evidence through the GRADE approach. Paired independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. The certainty of the evidence was extracted for each outcome. A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Around 28% of pediatric dentistry reviews of interventions used the GRADE approach (n = 24). Twenty reviews reported 112 evidence outcomes from RCTs and 13 from NRSIs using GRADE evidence profile tables. The methodological quality was high (16.7%), moderate (12.5%), low (37.5%), and critically low (33.3%), fulfilling the majority of the AMSTAR 2 criteria. The certainty of the evidence for outcomes generated from RCTs and NRSIs was very low (40.2% and 84.6%), low (33.1% and 7.7%), moderate (17.8% and 7.7%), and high (9.8% and 0.0%). The main reasons to downgrade the certainty were due to (for RCTs and NRSIs, respectively): risk of bias (68.8% and 84.6%), imprecision (67.8% and 100.0%), inconsistency (18.8% and 23.1%), indirectness (17.8% and 0.0%), and publication bias (7.1% and 0.0%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of systematic reviews assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach was considered small, considering the total initial number of published pediatric dentistry reviews of intervention. The certainty of the evidence was mainly very low and low, and the main problems for downgrading the certainty of evidence were due to risk of bias and imprecision. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database #CRD42022365443.

Outcomes-Based Treatment Planning in Endodontics: Applying the Latest Evidence.

A comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence treatment outcomes is crucial in endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Having knowledge that takes into account dental and patient-related conditions when choosing procedures can help clinicians maximize the prognosis of natural teeth and reduce postoperative complications. That being said, the landscape of outcome studies in endodontics is continually evolving, presenting a challenge for many clinicians trying to stay current with the latest literature. This article reviews factors that influence the outcomes of the following endodontic therapies: primary root canal treatment, nonsurgical retreatment, and surgical retreatment. An emphasis is placed on the importance of considering preoperative and treatment-related factors as prognostic indicators before developing a treatment plan, with the ultimate goal of enhancing tooth durability and ensuring patient satisfaction.

Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey.

BACKGROUND: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations. METHODS: We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012-October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization's characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data. RESULTS: We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.

Evidence-Based Pain Management: Dispelling Disinformation in Dentistry.

According to the American Dental Association Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct, dental professionals hold a special position of trust and privilege within society, and thus are bound to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. This code of ethics defines key tenets, including veracity, patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Maintaining these ethical principles goes beyond the competent delivery of operative care and requires up-to-date, evidence-based knowledge and practices on the part of clinicians.1 With pain management being a key component of endodontics practice, clinicians must maintain their knowledge on the most effective evidence-based pain management strategies to ethically care for their patients.

Dentists' knowledge of non-surgical root canal treatment, a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Dental practice is based upon dentists' cognitions, knowledge being foundational. Knowledge is attained through education and perception. Although knowledge is modulated by beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and behaviors, it is essential to evidence-based practice. Cross-sectional studies uniformly demonstrate that community NSRCT is of sub-optimal quality worldwide, is lack of knowledge a problem? Our purpose was to measure dentists' knowledge of root canal treatment (NSRCT). DATA: Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted: purpose, topics assessed, authors cited knowledge sources, number of dentists studied, number of questions, authors descriptors of knowledge level,% correct answers by question, authors recommendations. SOURCES: OVID Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: Studies which had measured dentists' knowledge of non-surgical root canal treatment that was valuable, reliable, and had practical implications which could be implemented. A total of 51 papers from 19 countries measured the knowledge of 15,580 dentists using 445 questions on 29 root canal treatment topics. CONCLUSIONS: 'Gold standards' were from literature, external bodies, or expert consensus in 47, 31, and 2 papers respectively. Levels of knowledge by percentage correct answers among studies were poor to moderate and varied considerably. The mean, for the 50 studies where overall study percentages could be calculated, was 57 %, standard deviation 17 %, and a range of 16 % to 82 %. Authors' adjectives describing knowledge levels were generally negative. Additional education was advised in 49 papers, but without evidence that education was inadequate; 6 papers recommended increased use of protocols; only 5 papers advocated research on the cause of lack of knowledge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dentists' root canal treatment knowledge was found to be poor to moderate, as well variable. This may constrain quality of care. However, provision of information without attention to dentists' cognitions and motivations may not be successful. Educational strategies and goals should be re-evaluated. Evidence-based practice faces many barriers.

Fishing for the evidence on community water fluoridation: a commentary on the CATFISH study.

DATA SOURCE: Goodwin M, Emsley R, Kelly M P et al. Evaluation of water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study. Southampton: National Institute for Health and Care Research, 2022. METHODS: This longitudinal, prospective cohort study, recruited two populations - a birth cohort and older school cohort - assessing the effects of community water fluoridation (CWF) over a five-year period. The control group received non-fluoridated drinking water in the East of Cumbria, while the intervention group received fluoridated drinking water in the West of Cumbria. The primary outcome measures were the presence or absence of decay into dentine in primary and permanent teeth. Cost effectiveness was assessed by quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Birth Cohort: Modest beneficial effect (17.4% with decay, 21.4% in control). Adjusted Odd Ratios (AOR): 0.74 (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98). Older Cohort: Insufficient evidence of difference (19.1% with decay and 21.9% in control). AOR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.58 to 1.09). CONCLUSION: The authors concluded that CWF was effective in the birth cohort and that the modest absolute reduction in caries should be considered in the context of other preventive measures. A longer follow-up period was recommended to fully understand the benefits and risks of CWF in contemporary low-prevalence populations.

3Mixtatin versus MTA in pulp therapy of primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current randomized controlled trials.

AIM: 3Mixtatin (a combination of Metronidazole, Minocycline, and Ciprofloxacin along with statins) is a novel biomaterial in pulp therapy, while Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) is considered the gold standard in endodontics. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of MTA and 3Mixtatin in pulp therapy of primary teeth. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest databases, and Google Scholar were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pulp therapy with 3Mixtatin and MTA in primary teeth, published up to February 2023. It should be noted that the protocol was previously registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021243626). RCTs were assessed independently by two researchers in terms of eligibility and quality. Data extracted and tabulated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The effect sizes were evaluated utilizing risk ratios (RRs). The heterogeneity investigation was conducted utilizing I² measurement at α = 0.10. RESULTS: Out of 86 retrieval records, four articles met the inclusion criteria. Based on clinical and radiographic outcomes, the application of 3Mixtatin in the pulp therapy of primary teeth was as successful as MTA in 12 months (Clinical RR = 1.087 | Radiographic RR = 2.132). The RoB-2 tool showed a low risk of bias in all included RCTs. CONCLUSION: The limited evidence showed the clinical and radiographic efficacy of 3Mixtatin as a potential alternative to MTA. Further empirical research with larger sample sizes and strict methodology will be essential to substantiate this assertion.

THE 3P MODEL AND ORAL HEALTH IMPACT: DEMONSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN THE FUTURE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY.

Oral health impact or oral health related quality of life is an increasingly important and well-known metric in dental care and research. There have been recent calls for greater integration of the behavioral and social sciences into oral health research and practice, including the need for frameworks and theories to guide this work. One such framework for understanding the role of predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating biopsychosocial mechanisms in health and disease is the "3P" model. Here, the 3P model is described and applied to case examples to help understand the development and maintenance of oral health impact. Additionally, this paper outlines how this conceptualization using the 3P model and oral health impact makes way for greater integration of behavioral interventions to prevent, mitigate, or treat the negative impact that oral, craniofacial, or dental disease may have on individuals. Doing this allows for a broadening of what evidence-based dentistry means for the future and provides a roadmap going forward.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES UPDATE 2023.

The emergence and rapid development of disruptive innovations are quickly turning our profession into personalized dentistry, built upon evidence-based, data-oriented, and patient-centered research. In order to help improve the quality and quantity of patient-centered evidence in dentistry, further promote the wide and standard use of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs), the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice has put together this special issue, the third of a series entitled Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes Update. A total of 7 solicited articles are collected in this issue. To put them into a broader perspective, this review provides a concise summary of key, selected PRO and dPRO articles published during 2023. A brief introduction to those articles included in this Special Issue follows. Four main domains are covered in this Special Issue: (1) dPROs and digital dentistry, (2) standardization of dPRO-related methodology, (3) current usage of dPROs and dPROMs in published research, and (iv) the significance and relevance of dPRO usage.

New dental graduates transition into UK professional practice; a longitudinal study of changes in perceptions and behaviours through the lens of evidence-based dentistry.

BACKGROUND: This longitudinal study using qualitative methodology aims to investigate the perceptions, and implementation, of evidence-based guidelines into practice among new dental graduates (NDGs) during their transition from university into professional practice, by identifying factors that influence the adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) in dental practice. METHODS: The study invited NDGs from one UK dental school (N = 66) and employed longitudinal, multiple qualitative methodologies for data collection, throughout the participants' Vocational Dental Training (VDT) year. Initial interviews (Interview 1) conducted upon graduation and follow-up interviews (Interview 2) carried out between six and nine months into professional practice were combined with participants longitudinal audio diaries (LADs) recorded between the interviews. RESULTS: A total of 12 NDGs agreed to participate. For Interview 1, twelve participants were interviewed, seven of whom agreed to participate in Interview 2 and six recorded the LADs. Interview 1 exposed diverse views among NDGs about EBP, acknowledging its significance but facing obstacles in implementation due to time and financial constraints. They intended to use evidence selectively, often aligning with trainers' or NHS treatment options, while hesitating to fully embrace EBP in a busy dental practice. During VDT, LAD entries showed initial enthusiasm for EBP, but integrating evidence-based guidelines within the NHS system led to pragmatic treatment decisions, balancing gold-standard and cost-effective options. Over time, NDGs became more comfortable with alternative treatments, considering patients' financial constraints, yet they expressed frustration with external pressures limiting their clinical decision-making autonomy. In Interview 2, after six to nine months in practice, NDGs exhibited mixed attitudes towards EBP. Some actively used dental guidelines like SDCEP, others associated EBP with hi-tech or expensive materials, while others would thought to rely on colleagues' recommendations. None consistently sought direct evidence for treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: NDGs' attitudes towards EBP changed and became more negative over their first year in professional practice, leading to challenges in their applying it. It questions the assumption that teaching EBP during undergraduate education ensures its implementation. Further understanding the influences on the development of attitudinal challenges will help to devise effective strategies for fostering lifelong learning and supporting evidence-based practice in dentistry.

Quality analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for management of impacted maxillary central incisors: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for management of impacted central incisors. METHODS: Search was performed in PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, and guideline-focused databases/repositories on 15-09-2022 without any limitations and was updated on 15-07-2023. Grey literature search was also performed. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection and data extraction. Quality assessment of the included CPG was performed by four independent appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. The degree of agreement among the appraisers was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Five CPG were included in the review. The Ministry of Health, Malaysia (MHM) guideline obtained the highest scores in all six domains of AGREE-II and an overall score of 73% demonstrating the "highest" quality. The remaining four guidelines obtained overall "low-quality" scores ranging from 34.57-37.52%. The ICC scores ranged from 0.530 to 0.990 for various domains of AGREE-II. CONCLUSION: MHM guidelines demonstrated high-quality scores in domains of 'scope and purpose', 'clarity of presentation', 'applicability domain', and 'editorial independence', while others were found to have moderate or low quality. This review identified areas that can be addressed by future guideline developers to avoid these discrepancies.

Effectiveness of educational strategies to teach evidence-based dentistry to undergraduate dental students: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) training has been widely promoted in dental schools around the world and policymakers ask for suitable strategies to teach EBD within undergraduate dental education. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies on dental students' knowledge, attitude, and skills. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Eric databases were searched using search terms obtained from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free text method without time restrictions, up to November 2022. The identified articles were screened based on titles and abstracts for inclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant articles underwent data extraction. Finally, the risk of bias was assessed through Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. RESULTS: Twelve of 439 studies were included: nine quasi-experimental studies, two cross-sectional, and one randomized controlled trial study. Regarding the overlap among categories, six studies assessed knowledge, seven assessed attitude, and eight focused on skills or performance in EBD. Due to the heterogeneity of the interventions and results of included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. EBD was mostly taught in small group collaborations. Interventions included lectures, workshops, seminars, small group sessions, journal clubs, online sessions, or a combination of them in various frequencies and duration. CONCLUSIONS: EBD implementation into dental curricula is improving through strategies including designing continuing and frequent dental education courses, establishing collaborative student research groups, utilizing online tools for EBD education, and dividing EBD courses into shorter modules. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022350238).

An evidence-based teaching approach enhances student learning of periodontal disease pathogenesis.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of implementing an evidence-based teaching approach (EBTA) in a traditional dental curriculum course on predoctoral dental students' knowledge and attitudes about evidence-based dentistry, and to determine its benefit on enhancing students' academic performance. METHODS: Fundamentals of periodontics for first-year dental students (D1, n = 100) span a period of 12 weeks. In the first 6 weeks, we teach the basic principles of periodontal disease pathogenesis and introduce the concepts of EBTA (basics of research study design, statistical principles, literature search, and critically analyzing the evidence) without active implementation. In the second 6 weeks, we build on the initial knowledge of periodontal disease pathogenesis and actively implement EBTA activities to enhance the learning of the course content. Pre- and post-EBTA implementation, students completed a validated survey assessing students' knowledge, attitudes, access of evidence, and confidence related to evidence-based dentistry. Midterm and final grades were used to assess student academic performance. RESULTS: Post-EBTA implementation survey responses showed: significant increase in students' knowledge regarding critical appraisal of the literature (p = 0.0001), significant improvement in students' attitudes about evidence-based dentistry (p = 0.0001), significant increase in students' frequency of accessing evidence from various sources (p = 0.01), and significant increase in students' confidence in evaluating various aspects of a published research report (p = 0.009). Post-EBTA final grade scores were significantly higher than pre-EBTA midterm grade scores (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating an EBTA within a traditional dental curriculum course improves students' knowledge and attitudes about evidence-based dentistry as well as enhances students' academic performance.

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended. CONCLUSION: The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.

Evaluation of the Performance of Generative AI Large Language Models ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing Chat in Supporting Evidence-Based Dentistry: Comparative Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing application of generative artificial intelligence large language models (LLMs) in various fields, including dentistry, raises questions about their accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comparatively evaluate the answers provided by 4 LLMs, namely Bard (Google LLC), ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), and Bing Chat (Microsoft Corp), to clinically relevant questions from the field of dentistry. METHODS: The LLMs were queried with 20 open-type, clinical dentistry-related questions from different disciplines, developed by the respective faculty of the School of Dentistry, European University Cyprus. The LLMs' answers were graded 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) points against strong, traditionally collected scientific evidence, such as guidelines and consensus statements, using a rubric, as if they were examination questions posed to students, by 2 experienced faculty members. The scores were statistically compared to identify the best-performing model using the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests. Moreover, the evaluators were asked to provide a qualitative evaluation of the comprehensiveness, scientific accuracy, clarity, and relevance of the LLMs' answers. RESULTS: Overall, no statistically significant difference was detected between the scores given by the 2 evaluators; therefore, an average score was computed for every LLM. Although ChatGPT-4 statistically outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 (P=.008), Bing Chat (P=.049), and Bard (P=.045), all models occasionally exhibited inaccuracies, generality, outdated content, and a lack of source references. The evaluators noted instances where the LLMs delivered irrelevant information, vague answers, or information that was not fully accurate. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that although LLMs hold promising potential as an aid in the implementation of evidence-based dentistry, their current limitations can lead to potentially harmful health care decisions if not used judiciously. Therefore, these tools should not replace the dentist's critical thinking and in-depth understanding of the subject matter. Further research, clinical validation, and model improvements are necessary for these tools to be fully integrated into dental practice. Dental practitioners must be aware of the limitations of LLMs, as their imprudent use could potentially impact patient care. Regulatory measures should be established to oversee the use of these evolving technologies.