14C Analysis and Sample Preparation at the New Bern Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA)

The University of Bern has set up the new Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA) equipped with an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) MICADAS (MIni CArbon Dating System) to continue its long history of 14C analysis based on conventional counting. The new laboratory is designated to provide routine 14C dating for archaeology, climate research, and other disciplines at the University of Bern and to develop new analytical systems coupled to the gas ion source for 14C analysis of specific compounds or compound classes with specific physical properties. Measurements of reference standards and wood samples dated by dendrochronology demonstrate the quality of the 14C analyses performed at the new laboratory.

Are sample sizes clear and justified in RCTs published in dental journals?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvement.

Prevalence, incidence and distribution of erosion.

There is evidence that the presence of erosion is growing steadily. Due to different scoring systems, samples and examiners, it is difficult to compare the different studies. Preschool children from 2 to 5 years showed erosion on deciduous teeth in 1 to 79% of the subjects. Schoolchildren (aged from 5 to 9 years) already had erosive lesions on permanent teeth in 14% of the cases. In the adolescent group (aged between 9 and 20 years), 7 to 100% of the persons examined showed signs of erosion. Incidence data (the increase in the number of subjects presenting signs of dental erosion) was evaluated in four of these studies and presented average annual values between 3.5 and 18%, depending on the initial age of the examined sample. In adults (aged from 18 to 88 years) prevalence data ranged between 4 and 100%. Incidence data are scarce in this age group, and only one study was found analysing the increase of affected surfaces, showing an incidence of 5% for the younger and 18% for older age groups. In general, males present more erosive tooth wear than females. The distribution showed a predominance of affected occlusal surfaces (mandibular first molars) followed by facial surfaces (anterior maxillary teeth). Oral erosion was frequently found on maxillary incisors and canines. Overall, prevalence data are not homogeneous. Nevertheless, there is a trend towards a more pronounced rate of erosion in younger age groups. Furthermore, a tendency was found for more erosive lesions with increasing age and these erosions progressed with age.