Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it

Randomization is a key step in reducing selection bias during the treatment allocation phase in randomized clinical trials. The process of randomization follows specific steps, which include generation of the randomization list, allocation concealment, and implementation of randomization. The phenomenon in the dental and orthodontic literature of characterizing treatment allocation as random is frequent; however, often the randomization procedures followed are not appropriate. Randomization methods assign, at random, treatment to the trial arms without foreknowledge of allocation by either the participants or the investigators thus reducing selection bias. Randomization entails generation of random allocation, allocation concealment, and the actual methodology of implementing treatment allocation randomly and unpredictably. Most popular randomization methods include some form of restricted and/or stratified randomization. This article introduces the reasons, which make randomization an integral part of solid clinical trial methodology, and presents the main randomization schemes applicable to clinical trials in orthodontics.

Appropriateness of reporting statistical results in orthodontics: the dominance of P values over confidence intervals

The purpose of this study was to search the orthodontic literature and determine the frequency of reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) in orthodontic journals with an impact factor. The six latest issues of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Angle Orthodontist were hand searched and the reporting of CIs, P values, and implementation of univariate or multivariate statistical analyses were recorded. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type/design as cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, and clinical trials, and according to the subject of the study as growth/genetics, behaviour/psychology, diagnosis/treatment, and biomaterials/biomechanics. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics followed by univariate examination of statistical associations, logistic regression, and multivariate modelling. CI reporting was very limited and was recorded in only 6 per cent of the included published studies. CI reporting was independent of journal, study area, and design. Studies that used multivariate statistical analyses had a higher probability of reporting CIs compared with those using univariate statistical analyses. Misunderstanding of the use of P values and CIs may have important implications in implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

A new system for computer-aided preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation during corrective jaw surgery

A new system for computer-aided corrective surgery of the jaws has been developed and introduced clinically. It combines three-dimensional (3-D) surgical planning with conventional dental occlusion planning. The developed software allows simulating the surgical correction on virtual 3-D models of the facial skeleton generated from computed tomography (CT) scans. Surgery planning and simulation include dynamic cephalometry, semi-automatic mirroring, interactive cutting of bone and segment repositioning. By coupling the software with a tracking system and with the help of a special registration procedure, we are able to acquire dental occlusion plans from plaster model mounts. Upon completion of the surgical plan, the setup is used to manufacture positioning splints for intraoperative guidance. The system provides further intraoperative assistance with the help of a display showing jaw positions and 3-D positioning guides updated in real time during the surgical procedure. The proposed approach offers the advantages of 3-D visualization and tracking technology without sacrificing long-proven cast-based techniques for dental occlusion evaluation. The system has been applied on one patient. Throughout this procedure, we have experienced improved assessment of pathology, increased precision, and augmented control.

Range of motion after computed tomography-based simulation of intertrochanteric corrective osteotomy in cases of slipped capital femoral epiphysis: comparison of uniplanar flexion osteotomy and multiplanar flexion, valgisation, and rotational osteotomies

BACKGROUND: Various osteotomy techniques have been developed to correct the deformity caused by slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) and compared by their clinical outcomes. The aim of the presented study was to compare an intertrochanteric uniplanar flexion osteotomy with a multiplanar osteotomy by their ability to improve postoperative range of motion as measured by simulation of computed tomographic data in patients with SCFE. METHODS: We examined 19 patients with moderate or severe SCFE as classified based on slippage angle. A computer program for the simulation of movement and osteotomy developed in our laboratory was used for study execution. According to a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the computed tomographic data, the physiological range was determined by flexion, abduction, and internal rotation. The multiplanar osteotomy was compared with the uniplanar flexion osteotomy. Both intertrochanteric osteotomy techniques were simulated, and the improvements of the movement range were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean slipping and thus correction angles measured were 25 degrees (range, 8-46 degrees) inferior and 54 degrees (range, 32-78 degrees) posterior. After the simulation of multiplanar osteotomy, the virtually measured ranges of motion as determined by bone-to-bone contact were 61 degrees for flexion, 57 degrees for abduction, and 66 degrees for internal rotation. The simulation of the uniplanar flexion osteotomy achieved a flexion of 63 degrees, an abduction of 36 degrees, and an internal rotation of 54 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from abduction, the improvement in the range of motion by a uniplanar flexion osteotomy is comparable with that of the multiplanar osteotomy. However, the improvement in flexion for the simulation of both techniques is not satisfactory with regard to the requirements of normal everyday life, in contrast to abduction and internal rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective comparative study.

Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials

SUMMARY Split-mouth designs first appeared in dental clinical trials in the late sixties. The main advantage of this study design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as the patients act as their own controls. Cited disadvantages relate to carry-across effects, contamination or spilling of the effects of one intervention to another, period effects if the interventions are delivered at different time periods, difficulty in finding similar comparison sites within patients and the requirement for more complex data analysis. Although some additional thought is required when utilizing a split-mouth design, the efficiency of this design is attractive, particularly in orthodontic clinical studies where carry-across, period effects and dissimilarity between intervention sites does not pose a problem. Selection of the appropriate research design, intervention protocol and statistical method accounting for both the reduced variability and potential clustering effects within patients should be considered for the trial results to be valid.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Left ventricular torsion abnormalities in septic shock and corrective effect of volume loading: a pilot study

BACKGROUND Ventricular torsion is an important component of cardiac function. The effect of septic shock on left ventricular torsion is not known. Because torsion is influenced by changes in preload, we compared the effect of fluid loading on left ventricular torsion in septic shock with the response in matched healthy control subjects. METHODS We assessed left ventricular torsion parameters using transthoracic echocardiography in 11 patients during early septic shock and in 11 age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers before and after rapid volume loading with 250 mL of a Ringer's lactate solution. RESULTS Peak torsion and peak apical rotation were reduced in septic shock (10.2 ± 5.2° and 5.6 ± 5.4°) compared with healthy volunteers (16.3 ± 4.5° and 9.6 ± 1.5°; P = 0.009 and P = 0.006 respectively). Basal rotation was delayed and diastolic untwisting velocity reached its maximum later during diastole in septic shock patients than in healthy volunteers (104 ± 16% vs 111 ± 14% and 13 ± 5% vs 21 ± 10%; P = 0.03 and P = 0.034, respectively). Fluid challenge increased peak torsion in both groups (septic shock, 10.2 ± 5.3° vs 12.6 ± 3.9°; healthy volunteers, 16.3 ± 4.5° vs 18.1 ± 6°; P = 0.01). Fluid challenge increased left ventricular stroke volume in septic shock patients (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS Compared with healthy volunteers, left ventricular torsion is impaired in septic shock patients. Fluid loading attenuates torsion abnormalities in parallel with increasing stroke volume. Reduced torsional motion might constitute a relevant component of septic cardiomyopathy, a notion that merits further testing in larger populations.

Corrective experiences in psychotherapy: Definitions, processes, consequences, and research directions

After 5 years of conceptualizing, investigating, and writing about corrective experiences (CEs), we (the authors of this chapter) met to talk about what we learned. In this chapter, we summarize our joint understanding of (a) the definition of CEs; (b) the contexts in which CEs occur; (c) client, therapist, and external factors that facilitate CEs; (d) the consequences of CEs; and (e) ideas for future theoretical, clinical, empirical, and training directions. As will become evident, the authors of this chapter, who represent a range of theoretical orientations, reached consensus on some CE-related topics but encountered controversy and lively debate about other topics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.