Annual Review of selected dental literature: Report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Aims: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. Materials and methods: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. Results: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. Conclusion: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidencebased dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. Clinical significance: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018
To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after titl...
The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry
European Journal of Oral Sciences, 2003
As the importance of evidence-based practice continues to be promoted, so the profile of the systematic review grows. In the late 1980s Mulrow (1) highlighted that many traditional, medical reviews were haphazard and biased, often reflecting the opinion of the review's authors. In contrast, systematic reviews follow explicit, well-documented, scientific methodology in order to reduce both systematic errors (biases) and random errors (those occurring by chance) and provide a more objective, comprehensive view of the research literature.
Methods for Comparing the Results of Different Studies
The reader of oral and maxillofacial implant literature is challenged to be cognizant of the quality of clinical research data. The large variety of possible study designs utilized by clinical researchers requires the reader to have a fundamental awareness of the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of commonly utilized study designs. This article aims to provide the reader with information to make an informed decision regarding the quality of a clinical research paper, so that he or she can judge whether the information presented in any given manuscript was obtained in a manner that truly minimizes bias, in the form of systematic or random errors, and whether it warrants serious consideration for clinical decision making. Special consideration is given to scientific literature pertaining to the use of oral and maxillofacial implants. In addition, the reader is presented with a method for placing any single manuscript within a "hierarchy of evidence" enabling an "estimate of confidence" in a particular therapy. By utilizing such methods to appraise the quality of research data, clinicians and patients will be better informed when making treatment-planning decisions. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2003;18:697-705
Evidence based Research in Dentistry: An Insight
The Journal of medical research, 2019
Dentists need to make clinical decisions based on limited scientific evidence. The goal of evidence-based dentistry is to help practitioners provide their patients with optimal care. This is achieved by integrating sound research evidence with personal clinical expertise and patient values to determine the best course of treatment. The basis of evidence-based dentistry and its application in research work.
STOMATOLOGY EDU JOURNAL, 2017
Dear Readers, Clinical dentistry is a difficult topic because little is either black or white, instead there are many, many grey areas. Practitioners and dental students know that if you present a case to 6 different dentists you will probably generate six different treatment plans, five of which will be similar and one will likely be radically different. Therefore, it is understandable to search for guidelines that are based on sound science. The modern way is to look for reproducible Scientific Evidence (Evidence Based Dentistry). As we know from the Cochrane Collaboration, the highest evidence is given by meta analyses of random controlled double blinded prospective studies (RCT), which is called a systematic review. This should eliminate all bias and produce a trustworthy conclusion. 1 Unfortunately, this approach can introduce at least four more fundamental complications: 1. Not every clinical question can be tested with a RCT. Ethical norms and sometimes costs can severely limit the possible options. 2 2. By limiting the analysis to just RCT and excluding all other information, the analysis is often limited to a few studies with an end result that severely reduces the reliability of the outcome. Often there is no clear evidence of which option to choose and the conclusion of the systematic review is that more research is needed to answer the question. 3,4,5 3. Sometimes the inclusion-exclusion criteria are so strong that the articles that are problematic are filtered out, thus diminishing the value of the data. 4. Long observation times (e.g. at least 5 years or more) are preferred, with the assumption that the conditions under observation do not change. This may be true if someone is comparing two drugs or two different surgical techniques. But in restorative dentistry things are different. With evidence based medicine, basically a procedure or medication is administered to the human body and the outcome measure is the reaction of the human body, usually over time (e.g. survival of the individual, blood pressure, mobility of an articulation, etc). However, in restorative dentistry the dentist introduces into the oral cavity a foreign material (e.g., a direct restoration, crown, removable or fixed dental prosthesis). The outcome measure is then how this foreign body behaves under stress in the oral cavity. This is problematic, because its behavior is dependent on many factors: for example patients change their lifestyle over time, and this can have a strong influence on the stress level (e.g., diet may change or a divorce may create bruxing habits). Furthermore it is known that the dentist is the most significant variable when looking at the longevity of the restorations. 6,7,8,9 For these reasons, I personally think that this approach may not be the best, when it comes to giving practitioners the most trustworthy information how to best carry out certain procedures.
Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guideline
Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2012
Background: A systematic review aims to combine outcome data from published studies in a population. It is based on a number of steps and although there are numerous advantages in systematic review studies, dentists have been finding difficulties in performing them. Objective: Taking into account the misconceptions and difficulties in conducting this kind of study, this article aims to guide readers for understanding, performing, and interpreting comprehensive systematic reviews in dental research.