Critical issues in clinical periodontal research

Implementation science and periodontal practice: Translation of evidence into periodontology

The advent of evidence-based practice in the 1990s led to the development of processes and resources to support the use of high-quality research in the provision of health care. As the evidence-based approach to health care continues to evolve, it has become apparent that mere creation and access to scientific knowledge is not sufficient to facilitate its routine adoption in health care. Throughout any health care system, there are inherent barriers preventing the adoption and routine use of new evidence in patient care. These barriers include provider-level factors, such as knowledge and access to new evidence, as well as each provider's attitudes and beliefs around adopting and applying the evidence with their patients. Importantly, there are also health care system-level barriers that, even among willing providers, prevent the easy adoption of new evidence and routine application in patient care. In addition to barriers, there are facilitators that help promote adoption of evidence into practice. Understanding and addressing barriers and facilitators to promote adoption of evidence into practice has led to the growth of a new field known as implementation science. Successful application of implementation science in all areas of health care, including periodontology, will help bridge the gap between what are known from clinical research to be effective treatments and what treatments should be applied routinely in clinical practice. This article reviews key concepts in implementation science and how its application in periodontology can facilitate the translation of high-quality evidence into routine periodontal practice and improved patient outcomes.

Randomized Clinical Trials in Pediatric Dentistry: Application of Evidence-Based Dentistry through the CONSORT Statement

In order to include appropriate informed decisions on dental therapeutic or preventive procedures in children, Pediatric Dentists should apply the fundamentals of "Evidence-Based Dentistry" (EBD). This oral health approach assists clinicians in understanding and applying the most relevant research published on evidence in the clinical setting when treating their patients. One of the crucial steps of EBD is to critically appraise and use the primary articles about therapy or prevention, namely, Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT), the study design that best addresses the questions related with these clinical areas. The aim of the present paper was to provide the basic concepts and an example of how to critically read and understand articles on RCT studies in Pediatric Dentistry employing the CONSORT statement, a process that involves assessing the reliability of results, risk of bias (internal validity), and applicability of reported clinical findings (external validity).

Scientific Interests of 21st Century Clinical Oral Implant Research: Topical Trend Analysis

BACKGROUND

Discrimination between ongoing and solved research questions may help to distinguish established dogmas from evidence-based implant dentistry.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate topics of interest in the field of oral implant science and evolving thematic trends in clinical studies during the last decade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic and manual searches of English literature were performed to identify clinical studies on oral implants. Out of 15,695 publications screened, 2,875 clinical investigations were included.

RESULTS

Among the most prevalent topics were immediate loading (14.3%), bone substitutes (11.6%), lateral sinus grafting (10.7%), implant overdentures (10.5%), single-tooth implant crowns (8.8%), cross-arch implant bridges (8.0%), immediate implant placement (7.5%), implant surfaces (7.0%), simultaneous implant placement and augmentation (6.4%) as well as guided bone regeneration (5.3%). Significant increase of scientific interest was seen in immediate loading (+6.3%, p < .001), platform switching (+2.9%, p < 0.001), lateral sinus grafting (+2.3%, p = .024), flapless implant surgery (+2.2%, p < 0.001), and guided implant surgery (+1.9%, p = .011), while research on implant overdentures (-6.6%, p = .033) and tooth-to-implant connection (-2.5%, p = .010) was on the decline.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature coverage, since the beginning of the 21st century, has seen greater focus on surgical topics compared to prosthodontic issues (p = .005) while only few topics experienced decrease of interest indicating scientific consensus.