Surdez pré-lingual: benefícios do implante coclear versus prótese auditiva convencional

INTRODUÇÃO: A maioria dos pacientes com perda auditiva, incluindo casos de perdas severas, é beneficiada com o uso de aparelho de amplificação sonora individual. Acredita-se que o implante coclear estabeleça melhores resultados na reabilitação de uma criança com perda auditiva nos casos em que a gravidade da deficiência torna os aparelhos acústicos convencionais incapazes de fornecer informação sonora adequada, já que estes necessitam de reserva coclear suficiente para que ocorra detecção acústica. OBJETIVO: Avaliar se em pacientes portadores de surdez pré-lingual o implante coclear traz benefício auditivo superior ao da prótese auditiva convencional. SÍNTESE DOS DADOS: Revisão sistemática realizada a partir de consulta a artigos científicos selecionados por busca no banco de dados SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE e LILACS-BIREME. Entre os 2169 artigos consultados, 12 trabalhos se mostram pertinentes ao tema e apresentaram força de evidência B. Entre os desenhos de estudos analisados na revisão, 7 são do tipo coorte prospectivo e 5 são estudos transversais. CONCLUSÃO: O implante coclear demonstrou, através de diversos estudos, ser atualmente, a melhor alternativa para os casos de perdas auditivas bilaterais severas ou profundas, atingindo resultados superiores em percepção e desenvolvimento de fala em crianças pré-linguais quando comparados aos aparelhos de amplificação sonora convencionais.

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.

Evaluation of location and dimensions of lingual foramina using limited cone-beam computed tomography

To assess retrospectively the frequency and location of mandibular lingual foramina and their bony canals with limited cone-beam computed tomography.

Assessment of speech perception and communication skills in adolescents with cochlear implants for pre- and peri-lingual deafness

This study aimed to assess speech perception and communication skills in adolescents between ages 8 and 18 that received cochlear implants for pre- and peri-lingual deafness.

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.

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).

Prevalence of tooth wear on buccal and lingual surfaces and possible risk factors in young European adults

To assess the prevalence of tooth wear on buccal/facial and lingual/palatal tooth surfaces and identify related risk factors in a sample of young European adults, aged 18-35 years. Calibrated and trained examiners measured tooth wear, using the basic erosive wear examination (BEWE) on in 3187 patients in seven European countries and assessed the impact of risk factors with a previously validated questionnaire. Each individual was characterized by the highest BEWE score recorded for any scoreable surface. Bivariate analyses examined the proportion of participants who scored 2 or 3 in relation to a range of demographic, dietary and oral care variables. The highest tooth wear BEWE score was 0 for 1368 patients (42.9%), 1 for 883 (27.7%), 2 for 831 (26.1%) and 3 for 105 (3.3%). There were large differences between different countries with the highest levels of tooth wear observed in the UK. Important risk factors for tooth wear included heartburn or acid reflux, repeated vomiting, residence in rural areas, electric tooth brushing and snoring. We found no evidence that waiting after breakfast before tooth brushing has any effect on the degree of tooth wear (p=0.088). Fresh fruit and juice intake was positively associated with tooth wear. In this adult sample 29% had signs of tooth wear making it a common presenting feature in European adults.

Indication and timing of soft tissue augmentation at maxillary and mandibular incisors in orthodontic patients. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE To assess the indication and timing of soft tissue augmentation for prevention or treatment of gingival recession when a change in the inclination of the incisors is planned during orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic database searches of literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no restrictions were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CENTRAL. Two authors performed data extraction independently using data collection forms. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. Two studies of low-to-moderate level of evidence were included: one of prospective and retrospective data collection and one retrospective study. Both implemented a periodontal intervention before orthodontics. Thus, best timing of soft tissue augmentation could not be assessed. The limited available data from these studies appear to suggest that soft tissue augmentation of bucco-lingual gingival dimensions before orthodontics may yield satisfactory results with respect to the development or progression of gingival recessions. However, the strength of the available evidence is not adequate in order to change or suggest a possible treatment approach in the daily practice based on solid scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS Despite the clinical experience that soft tissue augmentation of bucco-lingual gingival dimensions before orthodontic treatment may be a clinically viable treatment option in patients considered at risk, this treatment approach is not based on solid scientific evidence. Moreover, the present data do not allow to draw conclusions on the best timing of soft tissue augmentation when a change in the inclination of the incisors is planned during orthodontic treatment and thus, there is a stringent need for randomized controlled trials to clarify these open issues.

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.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

Cross-lingual ontology matching as a challenge for the Multilingual Semantic Web

Recently, the Semantic Web has experienced significant advancements in standards and techniques, as well as in the amount of semantic information available online. Nevertheless, mechanisms are still needed to automatically reconcile information when it is expressed in different natural languages on the Web of Data, in order to improve the access to semantic information across language barriers. In this context several challenges arise [1], such as: (i) ontology translation/localization, (ii) cross-lingual ontology mappings, (iii) representation of multilingual lexical information, and (iv) cross-lingual access and querying of linked data. In the following we will focus on the second challenge, which is the necessity of establishing, representing and storing cross-lingual links among semantic information on the Web. In fact, in a “truly” multilingual Semantic Web, semantic data with lexical representations in one natural language would be mapped to equivalent or related information in other languages, thus making navigation across multilingual information possible for software agents.

Cross-Lingual Linking of News Stories using ESA

In this paper, we describe our approach for Cross-Lingual linking of Indian news stories, submitted for Cross-Lingual Indian News Story Search (CL!NSS) task at FIRE 2012. Our approach consists of two major steps, the reduction of search space by using di�erent features and ranking of the news stories according to their relatedness scores. Our approach uses Wikipedia-based Cross-Lingual Explicit Semantic Analysis (CLESA) to calculate the semantic similarity and relatedness score between two news stories in di�erent languages. We evaluate our approach on CL!NSS dataset, which consists of 50 news stories in English and 50K news stories in Hindi.

Cross-lingual Linking on the Multilingual Web of Data (position statement)

Recently, the Semantic Web has experienced signi�cant advancements in standards and techniques, as well as in the amount of semantic information available online. Even so, mechanisms are still needed to automatically reconcile semantic information when it is expressed in di�erent natural languages, so that access to Web information across language barriers can be improved. That requires developing techniques for discovering and representing cross-lingual links on the Web of Data. In this paper we explore the different dimensions of such a problem and reflect on possible avenues of research on that topic.