Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

Self-etch primers and conventional acid-etch technique for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The use of self-etch primers has increased steadily because of their time savings and greater simplicity; however, overall benefits and potential disadvantages and harms have not been assessed systematically. In this study, we reviewed randomized controlled trials to assess the risk of attachment failure, bonding time, and demineralization adjacent to attachments between 1-stage (self-etch) and 2-stage (acid etch) bonding in orthodontic patients over a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

What's in a title? An assessment of whether randomized controlled trial in a title means that it is one

In this study, we aimed to investigate whether studies published in orthodontic journals and titled as randomized clinical trials are truly randomized clinical trials. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

Does published orthodontic research account for clustering effects during statistical data analysis?

In orthodontics, multiple site observations within patients or multiple observations collected at consecutive time points are often encountered. Clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared to individual randomized trials and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this study to assess to what degree clustering effects are considered during design and data analysis in the three major orthodontic journals. The contents of the most recent 24 issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) from December 2010 backwards were hand searched. Articles with clustering effects and whether the authors accounted for clustering effects were identified. Additionally, information was collected on: involvement of a statistician, single or multicenter study, number of authors in the publication, geographical area, and statistical significance. From the 1584 articles, after exclusions, 1062 were assessed for clustering effects from which 250 (23.5 per cent) were considered to have clustering effects in the design (kappa = 0.92, 95 per cent CI: 0.67-0.99 for inter rater agreement). From the studies with clustering effects only, 63 (25.20 per cent) had indicated accounting for clustering effects. There was evidence that the studies published in the AO have higher odds of accounting for clustering effects [AO versus AJODO: odds ratio (OR) = 2.17, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI): 1.06-4.43, P = 0.03; EJO versus AJODO: OR = 1.90, 95 per cent CI: 0.84-4.24, non-significant; and EJO versus AO: OR = 1.15, 95 per cent CI: 0.57-2.33, non-significant). The results of this study indicate that only about a quarter of the studies with clustering effects account for this in statistical data analysis.

Appreciation of cleft lip and palate treatment outcome by professionals and laypeople

The aim of the study was to analyse the aesthetic evaluation of head photographs of treated individuals with clefts by laypeople and professionals and to investigate how certain cephalometric variables could be related to their rating. A set of five standardized head photos (frontal, both laterals, three-quater right and left) of 12 Caucasian patients with treated unilateral cleft lip and palate were presented to 12 adult laypeople, 12 orthodontists, and 12 maxillofacial surgeons. For each set of photos the judges had to answer four questions on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The answers were analysed for intra- and inter-panel level of agreement and correlations of assessments with certain cephalometric parameters were determined. There was a high level of agreement for all assessments of each panel of raters. However, laypeople were less satisfied with lip and nose aesthetics compared to professionals. The three groups were similarly satisfied with the aesthetics of the jaws and the face. The anterior position of the maxilla (SNA) influenced positively professionals' ratings of facial aesthetics. Orthodontists were negatively influenced when the vertical dimension of the face or the distance of the lower lip to E-plane were relatively increased. The latter was the only cephalometric parameter correlated with lower aesthetic scores obtained from laypeople. Professionals report greater satisfaction from the treatment outcome and evaluate cleft consequences with less severity than laypeople. According to cephalometric findings, the relative positions of the lips seem to dominate facial aesthetics' appreciation by laypeople, while specialists appear to focus on different features of the face.