Will your article be found? Authors choose a confusing variety of words to describe dental survival analyses

OBJECTIVES: Identify the words and phrases that authors used to describe time-to-event outcomes of dental treatments in patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic handsearch of 50 dental journals with the highest Citation Index for 2008 identified articles reporting dental treatment with time-to-event statistics (included "case" articles, n = 95), without time-to-event statistics (active "control" articles, n = 91), and all other articles (passive "control" articles n = 6796). The included and active controls were read, identifying 43 English words across the title, aim and abstract, indicating that outcomes were studied over time. Once identified, these words were sought within the 6796 passive controls. Words were divided into six groups. Differences in use of words were analyzed with Pearson's chi-square across these six groups, and the three locations (title, aim, and abstract).

RESULTS: In the abstracts, included articles used group 1 (statistical technique) and group 2 (statistical terms) more frequently than the active and passive controls (group 1: 35%, 2%, 0.37%, P < 0.001 and group 2: 31%, 1%, 0.06%, P < 0.001). The included and active controls used group 3 (quasi-statistical) equally, but significantly more often than the passive controls (82%, 78%, 3.21%, P < 0.001). In the aims, use of target words was similar for included and active controls, but less frequent for groups 1-4 in the passive controls (P < 0.001). In the title, group 2 (statistical techniques) and groups 3-5 (outcomes) were similar for included and active controls, but groups 2 and 3 were less frequent in the passive controls (P < 0.001). Significantly more included articles used group 6 words (stating the study duration) (54%, 30%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION: All included articles used time-to-event analyses, but two-thirds did not include words to highlight this in the abstract. There is great variation in the words authors used to describe dental time-to-event outcomes. Electronic identification of such articles would be inconsistent, with low sensitivity and specificity. Authors should improve the reporting quality. Journals should allow sufficient space in abstracts to summarize research, and not impose unrealistic word limits. Readers should be mindful of these problems when searching for relevant articles. Additional research is required in this field.

Comparison of Composite Placement Techniques by Recently Qualified Dental Practitioners.

Objectives: To evaluate the placement of composite materials by new graduates using three alternative placement techniques.Methods: A cohort of 34 recently qualified graduates were asked to restore class II interproximal cavities in plastic teeth using three different techniques.

(i) A conventional incremental filling technique (Herculite XRV) using increments no larger than 2-mm with an initial layer on the cervical floor of the box of 1-mm.
(ii) Flowable bulk fill technique (Dentsply SDR) bulk fill placement in a 3-mm layer followed by an incremental fill of a microhybrid resin
(iii) Bulk fill (Kerr Sonicfill) which involved restorations placed in a 5-mm layer.

The operators were instructed in each technique, didactically and with a hands-on demonstration, prior to restoration placement.
All restorations were cured according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Each participant restored 3 teeth, 1 tooth per treatment technique.
The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria to assess both the marginal adaptation and the surface texture of the restorations. Blind evaluations were carried out independently by two examiners with the aid of magnification (loupes X2.5). Examiners were standardized prior to evaluation.
Results: Gaps between the tooth margins and the restoration or between the layers of the restoration were found in 13 of Group (i), 3 of Group (ii), and 4 of Group (iii)
Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the incrementally filled group (i) and the flowable bulk-fill group (ii) (p=0.0043) and between the incrementally filled (i) and the bulk fill groups (iii) (p=0.012) and no statistical difference (p=0.69) between the bulk filled groups Conclusions: Bulk fill techniques may result in a more satisfactory seal of the cavity margins when restoring with composite.