Industry support for dental implant research: A metatrend study of industry partnership in the development of new technologies

A critical look at outcome measures: Comparison between four dental research journals by use of a hierarchical model

AIM

To assess the status quo of outcome measures used in treatment studies in Endodontics, and potentially identify strategies for improvement, by (i) systematically assessing the outcome measures using a conceptual model and (ii) comparing these with measures used in corresponding studies in the adjacent fields.

METHODOLOGY

The International Endodontic Journal, Caries Research, The Journal of Clinical Periodontology and The Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache were selected to cover four adjacent dental disciplines. In each journal, the 50 most recent consecutive publications fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. A hierarchical model for diagnostic imaging studies was modified to assess studies related to treatment. The model comprised six levels, with technical as the lowest level and societal as the highest. Extracted data included study origin, study type, and identified outcome measures. Fisher's Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections compared studies. p < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Amongst 756 publications, the 200 most recent studies matching the inclusion criteria were identified. Less than half (36.5%) assessed the clinical, patient, or societal aspects of treatment; 10.0% in International Endodontic Journal, 28.0% in Caries Research, 38.0% in Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and 70.0% in Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to included publications, research on treatment within the endodontic field is mainly focusing on technical and biological outcomes. The benefits of patients and society were less frequently examined than in corresponding journals in adjacent disciplines. When designing studies, including higher-level outcomes should be considered.

Translating the determinant aspects on the study design in the dental implant field

Objective

In this article, we analyzed the important categories capable of interfering with the determinants of scientific advancement in the type of study, considering seven leading journals over a 20-year.

Methodology

A bibliometric review was performed at the website of well-established implant dentistry journals in five-time points defined to represent a 20-year period of observation. The measures associated with the type of study design were: the country of origin of the article, country income, continent of the corresponding author, inter-institutional collaboration, interdisciplinary collaboration, type of funding, and topic of research. Logistic regression was used in the multiple models to identify the exploratory factors associated with the type of study.

Results

From a total of 1,944 articles, 50.6% comprised clinical studies. High-income countries and continents stood out for developing more clinical research than others. Since research funders request more collaborative research, overall clinical studies depended upon more inter-institutional collaboration than the others. Most clinical studies were partly supported by research institutes or universities and by industry. About the research topic, the majority of the clinical and animal studies disclosed surgical procedures.

Conclusions

High-income countries and continents are more likely to develop clinical studies in the surgical procedures field. The highest collaborations in terms of the number of institutions and funding sources are more prevalent in clinical research designs. Indeed, most in vivo studies in dental implant fields are performed to evaluate new materials or even new surgical procedures.

Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the body of evidence of short versus regular implants after bone augmentation (BA) in the atrophic posterior mandible in the context of implant treatment success outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases, two registries, and reference lists were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR/MA), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies published in English, Spanish or German since 2012. Confidence in the SR/MA methodology was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias of primary studies using Cochrane's RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression were performed for continuous and dichotomous outcomes. GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs/MAs, most of them "critically low" and "low" confidence with substantial overlap, included 14 relevant RCTs with a high risk of bias. A cohort study with moderate risk of bias was added. Quantitative synthesis of 595 implants and 281 hemiarches/patients indicates that the use of short implants (< 10 mm) compared to regular implants and BA may reduce implant failure at 1-year follow-up, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; is likely to reduce the risk of biological complications at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; and may be the patient's preferred alternative. There is a correlation between bone height, MBL and biological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence partially suggests that the use of short implants could decrease implant failure, MBL, and biological complications, and increase patient satisfaction. However, given the need for further RCTs and real-world evidence to fully evaluate short- and long-term outcomes, it would be prudent for clinicians to carefully consider the individual needs and circumstances of the patients before deciding whether to use short implants. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022333526.

Bibliometric assessment in implant-retained overdenture articles: Mapping citation and journal impact factor trends

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant-retained overdentures are a recognized treatment option. However, a comprehensive assessment of all articles on implant-retained overdentures to identify publication standards such as mean citation and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bibliometric assessment was to evaluate the association of mean citation and JCR impact factor with bibliometric parameters in articles on implant-retained overdentures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Articles reporting randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (N-RCTs); case reports and series; retrospective studies; and in silico, in vitro, or systematic reviews in 6 databases were included. Data were extracted, and 2 multiple Poisson regressions analyses were applied (α=.05). The dependent variables were mean citation and JCR impact factor, which were evaluated to identify their association with bibliometric parameters by using prevalence ratio (PR) values.

RESULTS

A total of 1369 articles published from 1986 to 2021 were included. The data revealed a high mean citation and high JCR impact factor for RCT, N-RCT, retrospective, and in vitro studies (P<.05). In silico studies presented a high mean citation (P<.001). Senior researchers with a high h-index were more likely to have a high mean citation and publications with a high JCR impact factor (P<.001). Also, senior authors associated with an international network were more likely to have a high mean citation (P=.001). High-income countries had more studies with a high mean citation and JCR impact factor (P<.05). Higher JCR impact factors were associated with articles evaluating only the maxilla or mandible (P<.05). The topics "implant setting" and "macrodesign" were associated with a high mean citation (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication trends suggest a high mean citation and a high JCR impact factor for clinical designs (RCT, N-RCT, retrospective) and in vitro studies. The same pattern was also displayed for researchers with a high h-index and located in high-income countries.

Mapping the trends and impact of research collaboration between countries in oral implantology publications: A bibliometric analysis from 1999 to 2019

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Scientific collaboration provides a suitable strategy for enhancing the exchange of knowledge and technological development. However, the impact of collaboration in oral implantology research between countries and how it has been influenced by the income status of the country has not been previously evaluated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to evaluate how collaboration between countries affected oral implant publications and whether patterns of collaboration differ depending on the country's income.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Articles were retrieved from 7 well-established journals whose scope included oral implantology at 5 time points (1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). Data were extracted, and descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 1944 articles were included; of which, 27.5% presented collaboration between countries. In 2009, 2014, and 2019, collaboration between countries was more likely to occur than at previous time points (P≤.005). Corresponding authors with a higher h-index (P<.05) and authors from Europe and North America (P<.001) were more likely to establish international connections. The possibility of collaboration between countries was higher for animal studies (P<.001) and for articles published by Clinical Oral Implants Research (P=.026). Collaborations between high-income and upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries were more likely to happen in 2014 and 2019 (P<.05), as well as when the number of authors was higher (P=.015), compared with collaboration between high-income countries. With regard to the continent, European articles were less likely to have collaborations with upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that some parameters related to the study, authors, countries, and journals were statistically associated with the presence of collaboration between countries. However, the bibliometric parameters showed different trends when countries of different incomes established collaboration.