Search

Introduction: Despite being a largely preventable disease, untreated caries of permanent teeth is estimated to affect almost 2 billion people worldwide, which is followed by severe periodontal disease. The aim of this work was to provide a professional consensus on tooth brushing methods and associated oral hygiene behaviours and develop evidence-informed recommendations., Methods: An initial scoping search was undertaken to identify systematic reviews of relevance and key questions. This was followed by comprehensive evidence mapping of the literature focussing on systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Electronic searches of several databases including MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library were undertaken from 2000 to May 2022, alongside a guideline repository search. Considered Judgement Forms were developed detailing the underpinning evidence, balance between benefits and harms, potential impact on the population, and feasibility of implementation. An online survey comprising 22 draft recommendations was distributed to international members of all FDI committees, including the FDI Council. Participants were asked to indicate to what level they agreed or disagreed with for each recommendation and to provide feedback. The Considered Judgement Forms were provided for reference., Results: Three hundred ten records were identified and mapped to different aspects of tooth brushing methods and associated behaviours. Research literature informed 7 Considered Judgement Forms comprising 12 questions with draft recommendations. Twenty-five participants from Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Australia provided feedback on the recommendations. More than 70% of respondents showed agreement with 21 of the 22 draft recommendations. Final recommendations were drafted with associated strength of recommendation., Conclusion: Using a robust methodology and an international professional consensus, a set of evidence-informed recommendations was developed. These recommendations provide clinicians with practical guidance to facilitate communications with patients that may help to reinforce individual-level preventive strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Antimicrobial mouthwashes are considered to reduce dental plaque biofilm and thus the potential to prevent plaque-induced oral diseases, particularly periodontal diseases. The effectiveness of mouthwashes relates to this antiplaque role, as well as, their tooth-whitening potential and ability to mask/mange malodour (halitosis). There is also a growing interest in the use of mouthwashes as an adjunctive measure in post surgical and post-dental care, while the COVID-19 pandemic has given a new lease of life to mouthwashes as an oral antispetic that may be useful in reducing the oral viral load. The mode of action of mouthwashes varies, depending on their active ingredients, concentrations, and mode and frequency of use, as does their potential effectiveness. This article aims to provide a narrative overview of the evidence of the effectiveness of the most widely used mouthwashes in managing oral diseases, oral conditions, and adjunctive care roles., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: 'Quality' in primary care dentistry is poorly defined. There are significant international efforts focussed on developing quality measures within dentistry. The aim of this research was to identify measures used to assess quality in primary care dentistry and categorise them according to which dimensions of quality they attempt to measure., Methods: Quality measures were identified from the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Peer-reviewed papers describing the development and validation of measures were identified using a structured literature search. Measures from the grey literature were identified using structured searches and direct contact with dental providers and institutions. Quality measures were categorised according to domains of structure, process and outcome and by disaggregated dimensions of quality., Results: From 22 studies, 11 validated measure sets (comprising nine patient satisfaction surveys and two practice assessment instruments) were identified from the peer-reviewed literature. From the grey literature, 24 measure sets, comprising 357 individual measures, were identified. Of these, 96 addressed structure, 174 addressed process and 87 addressed outcome. Only three of these 24 measure sets demonstrated evidence of validity testing. The identified measures failed to address dimensions of quality, such as efficiency and equity., Conclusions: There has been a proliferation in the development of dental quality measures in recent years. However, this development has not been guided by a clear understanding of the meaning of quality. Few existing measures have undergone rigorous validity or reliability testing. A consensus is needed to establish a definition of quality in dentistry. Identification of the important dimension of quality in dentistry will allow for the production of a core quality measurement set., (© 2018 FDI World Dental Federation.)

Background: Recent years have seen numerous efforts and resources devoted to the development of open access (OA), but the current OA situation of the oncology literature remains unknown. We conducted this cross-sectional study to determine the current share and provision methods of OA in the field of oncology, identify predictors of OA status (OA versus non-OA), and study the association between OA and citation counts., Materials and Methods: PubMed was searched for oncology-related, peer-reviewed journal articles published in December 2014. Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, ResearchGate, OpenDOAR and OAIster were manually checked to assess the OA status of each included article. Citation data were extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the OA proportion (primary outcome) and OA provision methods. Multivariable logistic regression and multilevel generalized linear model analyses were performed to study predictors of OA status and the association between OA and citation counts, respectively., Results: In a random sample of 1000 articles, 912 were deemed eligible and therefore included. Of these, the full-texts of 530 articles (58.1%; 95% CI: 54.9-61.3) were freely available online: 314 (34.4%) were available from publishers ('Gold road' to OA), 424 (46.5%) were available via self-archiving ('Green road' to OA). According to multivariable regression analyses, impact factor, publisher type, language, research type, number of authors, continent of origin, and country income were significant predictors of articles' OA status; OA articles received a citation rate 1.24 times the incidence rate for non-OA articles (95% CI: 1.05-1.47; P = 0.012)., Conclusions: Based on our sample, in the field of oncology, 42% of recent journal articles are behind the pay-wall (non-OA) 1 year after publication; the 'Green road' of providing OA is more common than the 'Gold road'; OA is associated with higher citation counts., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Open Access (OA) to the scientific literature, a recent revolution in scientific communication, is now required by an increasing number of funders and institutions. The aims of this narrative review are to raise awareness of OA-related concepts and recent research findings among stakeholders in dentistry and to help them make better use of OA and relevant resources., Data Sources: Published journal articles and relevant online materials., Study Selection/results: OA-related definitions and research findings, the approaches to OA, as well as its motivating factors, benefits, 'citation advantage', and mandate policies are introduced. Moreover, the phenomenon of predatory publishing and the status quo of OA in dentistry are discussed. Recommendations are made for stakeholders to avoid and address the hazards of predatory publishing, and for dental researchers to make their work OA in an appropriate manner., Conclusions/clinical Significance: Knowledge about concepts on OA, associated resources and research findings are important for researchers and other users of dental research to make full, appropriate use of OA, and help reduce the avoidable waste caused by inaccessible research. We need more studies into the use and development of OA in dentistry. In addition, joint efforts are required to eliminate the threat of predatory publishing to the dental profession., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To review the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences and investigate the association between full publication proportion (FPP) and abstract characteristics, conference characteristics, and methodological quality of primary studies., Study Design and Setting: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 2014 for studies that reported at least one FPP of abstracts presented at dental conferences, with a follow-up length of no less than 48 months., Results: Sixteen studies involving 10,365 abstracts presented at 52 conferences were included. The pooled FPP was 29.62% (95% confidence interval: 22.90%, 36.81%) for all presented abstracts and 51.97% (95% confidence interval: 43.19%, 60.70%) for randomized controlled trial abstracts. Abstract characteristics significantly associated with higher FPP included reporting of statistical analysis (P < 0.001), oral presentation (P < 0.001), basic science research (P = 0.047), and reporting of financial support (P = 0.009). Abstracts with positive (P = 0.29) or statistically significant results (P = 0.33) were not published more often than negative or nonsignificant results, respectively. In multivariable meta-regression analysis, conferences held in Asia (P < 0.001) and at a continental rather than national level (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher FPP., Conclusions: Less than one-third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full more than 4 years after conference presentation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate the current prevalence of open access (OA) in the field of dentistry, the means used to provide OA, as well as the association between OA and citation counts., Methods: PubMed was searched for dental articles published in 2013. The OA status of each article was determined by manually checking Google, Google Scholar, PubMed and ResearchGate. Citation data were extracted from Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Chi-square tests were used to compare the OA prevalence by different subjects, study types, and continents of origin. The association between OA and citation count was studied with multivariable logistic regression analyses., Results: A random sample of 908 articles was deemed eligible and therefore included. Among these, 416 were found freely available online, indicating an overall OA rate of 45.8%. Significant difference in OA rate was detected among articles in different subjects (P<0.001) and among those from different continents (P<0.001). Of articles that were OA, 74.2% were available via self-archiving ('Green road' OA), 53.3% were available from publishers ('Gold road' OA). According to multivariable logistic regression analyses, OA status was not significantly associated with either the existence of citation (P=0.37) or the level of citation (P=0.52)., Conclusions/clinical Significance: In the field of dentistry, 54% of recent journal articles are behind the paywall (non-OA) one year after their publication dates. The 'Green road' of providing OA was more common than the 'Gold road'. No evidence suggested that OA articles received significantly more citations than non-OA articles., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Indirect comparison methods have been increasingly used to assess the effectiveness of different interventions comparatively. This study evaluated a Trial Similarity and Evidence Consistency Assessment (TSECA) framework for assessing key assumptions underlying the validity of indirect comparisons., Study Design and Setting: We applied the TSECA framework to 94 Cochrane Systematic Reviews that provided data to compare two interventions by both direct and indirect comparisons. Using the TSECA framework, two reviewers independently assessed and scored trial similarity and evidence consistency. A detailed case study provided further insight into the usefulness and limitations of the framework proposed., Results: Trial similarity and evidence consistency scores obtained using the assessment framework were not associated with statistically significant inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates. The case study illustrated that the assessment framework could be used to identify potentially important differences in participants, interventions, and outcome measures between different sets of trials in the indirect comparison., Conclusion: Although the overall trial similarity and evidence consistency scores are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for predicting inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates, the assessment framework proposed in this study can be a useful tool for identifying between-trial differences that may threaten the validity of indirect treatment comparisons., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to systematically review the literature related to oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and amalgam restorations., Study Design: Cohort and case-controlled studies (no randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials available) were reviewed with respect to inclusion criteria and data on patients with OLLs, treatment interventions, and the measurement of outcomes., Results: Fourteen cohort and 5 case-controlled trials met the criteria. The study population consisted of 1158 patients (27% male and 73% female; age range, 23-79 years). From 16% to 91% of patients had positive patch test results for at least 1 mercury compound. Of 1158 patients, 636 had to have their restorations replaced. The follow-up period ranged from 2 months to 9 1/2 years. Complete healing ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The greatest improvements were seen in lesions in close contact with amalgam., Conclusions: Protocols must be standardized to obtain valid results. The replacement of amalgam restorations can result in the resolution or improvement of OLLs. Patch testing seems to be of limited value. The topographic relationship between an OLL and an amalgam restoration is a useful--but not conclusive--marker.

Objectives: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, principally in relation to plaque removal and gingival health. Stain, calculus removal, dependability, adverse effects and cost were also considered., Method: A systematic review was undertaken in collaboration with the Cochrane Oral Health Group. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing powered and manual toothbrushes. Trials of less than 28 days duration, or where toothbrushing was supervised, were excluded. Assessment of relevance, data extraction and validity assessment were all undertaken independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Included studies were grouped according to the mode of action of the powered toothbrush. The primary outcomes were plaque and gingival health with data defined as either short-term (1-3 months) or long-term (greater than 3 months) duration were analysed. Powered brushes were categorised into six groups depending on mode of action. Numerical data extracted were checked by a third reviewer for accuracy and entered into RevMan (version 4.1)., Results: The initial search identified 354 studies. Two hundred and fifteen full articles were obtained of which 29 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria with results, which could be entered in the meta-analysis. Twenty-six trials (1786 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term plaque scores. Twenty-nine trials (2236 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term gingivitis scores. Powered brushes reduced plaque and gingivitis at least as effectively as manual brushing. Rotation oscillation powered brushes statistically significantly reduced plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. For plaque at one to 3 months the standardised mean difference was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.45 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02, -0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported., Conclusion: In general there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between powered and manual brushes. However, rotation oscillation powered brushes significantly reduce plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. The clinical significance of this reduction is not known. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature in order to determine the prevalence and associated risk factors of oro-facial pain., Data: Population based observational studies (cohorts, cross-sectional and case-control studies) of oro-facial pain, published in the English language, prior to 1999 were included., Sources: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, BIDS and Health CD) were searched. Reference lists of relevant articles were examined, and the journals "Pain" and "Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology" were handsearched for the years 1994-1998., Results: The results of the search strategy were screened for relevance. A standardised checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of each study by two reviewers before an attempt was made to summarise the results. The median quality score was 70% of the maximum attainable score. Due to methodological issues, it was not possible to pool the data on the prevalence of oro-facial pain. Age, gender and psychological factors were found to be associated with OFP, however there was not enough information on other factors such as local mechanical and co-morbidities to draw any reliable conclusions. None of the factors fully fulfilled criteria for causality., Conclusions: There is a need for good quality epidemiological studies of oro-facial pain in the general population. To enable comprehensive examination of the aetiology of oro-facial pain, it is necessary to address a broad range of factors including demography and life-style, local mechanical factors, medical history and psychological factors. Future studies should recruit adequately sized samples for precise determination of the prevalence and detection of important associated factors. Data on potential confounders and effect modifiers should also be collected and adjusted for in the statistical analysis.

This paper aims to explore the potential usefulness and limitations of indirect comparisons in evaluating the relative efficacy of interventions. From a systematic review of antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery, we identified 11 sets of randomized trials that can be used to compare antibiotics both directly and indirectly. The discrepancy between the direct and the indirect comparison is defined as the absolute value of difference in log odds ratio. The adjusted indirect comparison has the advantages that the prognostic factors of participants in different trials can be partially taken into account and more uncertainty be incorporated into its result by providing a wider confidence interval. However, considerable discrepancies exist between the direct and the adjusted indirect comparisons. When there is no direct comparison, the adjusted indirect method may be used to obtain some evidence about the relative efficacy of competing interventions, although such indirect results should be interpreted with great caution. Further empirical and methodologic research is needed to explore the validity and generalizability of the adjusted indirect comparison for evaluating different interventions.