A two-centre study on facial morphology in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate at nine years of age

The aim of this study was to compare craniofacial morphology and soft tissue profiles in patients with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate at 9 years of age, treated in two European cleft centres with delayed hard palate closure but different treatment protocols. The cephalometric data of 83 consecutively treated patients were compared (Gothenburg, N=44; Nijmegen, N=39). In total, 18 hard tissue and 10 soft tissue landmarks were digitized by one operator. To determine the intra-observer reliability 20 cephalograms were digitized twice with a monthly interval. Paired t-test, Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression models were applied for statistical analysis. Hard and soft tissue data were superimposed using the Generalized Procrustes Analysis. In Nijmegen, the maxilla was protrusive for hard and soft tissue values (P=0.001, P=0.030, respectively) and the maxillary incisors were retroclined (P<0.001), influencing the nasolabial angle, which was increased in comparison with Gothenburg (P=0.004). In conclusion, both centres showed a favourable craniofacial form at 9-10 years of age, although there were significant differences in the maxillary prominence, the incisor inclination and soft tissue cephalometric values. Follow-up of these patients until facial growth has ceased, may elucidate components for outcome improvement.

Reporting of statistical results in prosthodontic and implantology journals: p values or confidence intervals?

PURPOSE Confidence intervals (CIs) are integral to the interpretation of the precision and clinical relevance of research findings. The aim of this study was to ascertain the frequency of reporting of CIs in leading prosthodontic and dental implantology journals and to explore possible factors associated with improved reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were accessed, covering the years 2005 to 2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Dentistry. Articles were screened and the reporting of CIs and P values recorded. Other information including study design, region of authorship, involvement of methodologists, and ethical approval was also obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with reporting of CIs. RESULTS Interrater agreement for the data extraction performed was excellent (kappa = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89). CI reporting was limited, with mean reporting across journals of 14%. CI reporting was associated with journal type, study design, and involvement of a methodologist or statistician. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of CI in implant dentistry and prosthodontic journals requires improvement. Improved reporting will aid appraisal of the clinical relevance of research findings by providing a range of values within which the effect size lies, thus giving the end user the opportunity to interpret the results in relation to clinical practice.