Is clustering accounted for in studies published in periodontology and oral implantology specialty journals?

BACKGROUND: Clustering effects can be encountered in periodontology and implant dentistry research. The aim of this study was to identify studies with clustering effects published in periodontology and oral implantology specialty journals and to assess the frequency by which clustered designs are correctly accounted for in the statistical analysis. METHODS: Ten periodontology and oral implantology journals were searched to identify studies with clustering effects published between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated. Associations between the correct statistical handling of clustering effects and study characteristics were explored. RESULTS: A total of 695 studies were included of which 45.0% correctly accounted for clustering effects in the statistical analysis. Certain journals (p < 0.01) and animal studies (p < 0.01) had lower odds of correctly accounting for clustering effects in the statistical analysis, whereas per unit increase in impact factor (p < 0.001), involvement of statistician (p < 0.001) and when the study design included either repeated measures only (p < 0.01) or both clustering and repeated measures (p < 0.001) had higher odds. The most commonly used tests were the mixed models or generalized estimating equations (64.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Greater awareness of the importance of accounting for clustering effects is required to prevent incorrect inferences being drawn. Incorrect inferences are related to lack of data independence and the artificial inflation of the sample size which can result in statistically significant results which are not genuine. This issue can be further exaggerated in combination with publication bias.

Expert panels as a reference standard in orthodontic research: An assessment of published methods and reporting.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the expert panel methodology applied in orthodontics and its reporting quality. Additionally, the relationship between the reporting quality and a range of variables was explored. METHODS: PubMed was searched for orthodontic studies in which the final diagnosis or assessment was made by 2 or more experts published up to March 16, 2015. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using an established modified checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the total score was assessed using univariable linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 237 studies with a mean score of 9.97 (SD, 1.12) out of a maximum of 15. Critical information about panel methodology was missing in all studies. The panel composition differed substantially across studies, ranging from 2 to 646 panel members, with large variations in the expertise represented. Only 17 studies (7.2%) reported sample size calculations to justify the panel size. Panel members were partly blinded in 65 (27.4%) studies. Most studies failed to report which statistic was used to compute intrarater (65.8%) and interrater (66.2%) agreements. Journal type (nonorthodontic: ß, 0.23; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.54 compared with orthodontic), publication year (ß, 0; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02 for each additional year), number of authors (1-3: ß, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.74 compared with at least 6; 4-5: ß, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.33 compared with at least 6), and number of centers involved (single: ß, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.54 compared with multicenter) were not significant predictors of improved reporting. Studies published in Asia and Australia had significantly lower scores compared with those published in Europe (ß, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Formal guidelines on methodology and reporting of studies involving expert panels are required.

Risk of bias and magnitude of effect in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological review.

AIM: To assess the risk of bias (RoB) in a subset of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in orthodontic journals using the Cochrane RoB tool and to identify associations between domain RoB assessment and treatment effect estimates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive issues of four major orthodontic journals were electronically searched to identify RCTs. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, which involves seven domains rated as 'low', 'unclear' or 'high': random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting, and other threats to internal validity. Estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were recorded or calculated where possible for binary and continuous outcome measures. Meta-regression models were employed to assess the impact of RoB per domain on the magnitude of treatment effect. RESULTS: One hundred and one eligible studies involving 128 pair-wise comparisons were retrieved. Blinding of outcome assessors and incomplete outcome data were frequently judged as 'high' for RoB both for studies with binary and continuous outcome (42.9 and 48.8 per cent, respectively). For binary outcomes, high RoB regarding random sequence generation [odds ratio (OR): 5.97, 95% CI: 2.03, 17.63, P-value: 0.002] and incomplete outcome data (OR: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.03, 16.15, P-value: 0.05) were more likely to provide exaggerated effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improved clinical trial methodology and reporting, in order to avoid inflated associations and erroneous conclusions.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS: The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS: 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: ß = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: ß = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: ß = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (ß = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: ß = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: ß = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: ß = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

A comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with surgical exposure and traction of maxillary impacted canines versus that without impactions.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Orthodontic management of maxillary canine impaction (MCI), including forced eruption, may result in significant root resorption; however, the association between MCI and orthodontically induced root resorption (OIRR) is not yet sufficiently established. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to comparatively evaluate the severity of OIRR of maxillary incisors in orthodontically treated patients with MCI. Additionally, impaction characteristics were associated with OIRR severity. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample comprised 48 patients undergoing fixed-appliance treatment-24 with unilateral/bilateral MCI and 24 matched controls without impaction. OIRR was calculated using pre- and post-operative panoramic tomograms. The orientation of eruption path, height, sector location, and follicle/tooth ratio of the impacted canine were also recorded. Mann-Whitney U-test and univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to test for the associations of interest. RESULTS: Maxillary central left incisor underwent more OIRR in the impaction group (mean difference = 0.58mm, P = 0.04). Overall, the impaction group had 0.38mm more OIRR compared to the control (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.03, 0.74; P = 0.04). However, multivariate analysis demonstrated no difference in the amount of OIRR between impaction and non-impaction groups overall. A positive association between OIRR and initial root length was observed (95% CI: 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.001). The severity of canine impaction was not found to be a significant predictor of OIRR. LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective study and used panoramic tomograms for OIRR measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that MCI is a weak OIRR predictor. Interpretation of the results needs caution due to the observational nature of the present study.

Maxillary canine impaction in orthodontic patients with and without agenesis: a cross-sectional radiographic study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess potential associations between maxillary canine impaction (MCI) and agenesis status as well as between MCI and gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 182 orthodontic patients with agenesis (excluding the third molars) and 630 orthodontic patients without agenesis were examined. Diagnosis of MCI was based on pretreatment panoramic radiographs. Maxillary canines that had not erupted as a result of physical barrier or deflection in the eruption path at the dental age of at least 12 years were considered impacted. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for the associations of interest. RESULTS: MCI was detected in 5.6% (n = 35) of the nonagenesis group (28 female and 7 male participants) and in 18.1% (n = 33) of the agenesis group (20 female and 13 male participants). Bilateral impaction was detected in 12 patients (34.3%) of the nonagenesis group and in 11 patients (33.3%) of the agenesis group. There was evidence that maxillary lateral incisor agenesis (odds ratio = 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-10.5, P < .001) and second premolar agenesis (odds ratio = 2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.6, P = .042) were significant MCI predictors after adjusting for gender. The odds of MCI were 69% higher in female versus male subjects after adjusting for agenesis status (95% CI 0.97-2.92, P = .063). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that there is evidence that agenesis status is a strong predictor of MCI, whereas gender is a weak predictor of MCI. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results because of the observational nature of the present study.