An analysis of papers published in the British and European Journals of Orthodontics

A mapping review of systematic reviews in orthodontics: a five-year analysis

OBJECTIVES

This mapping review aimed to identify trends, frequently reviewed topics and assess the methodological quality of recent orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs published between January 2018 and June 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2.

RESULTS

From 3,131 initial articles, 430 SRs were included. A publication increase of over 50% occurred from 2019 to 2022. The most frequent topics were palatal expansion (12.6%), techniques to accelerate orthodontic movement (11.6%), and clear aligners (9.3%). Only 18.2% of SRs were rated as high or moderate quality, with those on clear aligners rated the lowest (4.9%). Common methodological weaknesses included a lack of protocol registration, absence of excluded study lists, and failure to address publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic SRs have increased significantly over the five-year period assessed, with notable increase in contributions from specific countries. However, most SRs exhibited low methodological quality, raising concerns about clinical applicability. Improved adherence to methodological and reporting standards is crucial for enhancing SR quality and credibility.

International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020)

INTRODUCTION

The number of published orthodontic studies has increased considerably over the past ten years.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the bibliometric data of international orthodontic studies included in orthodontic journals encompassed by the Scopus database between 2011 and 2020, as well as to undertake data comparison between the period 2010-2015 and the period 2016-2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective search was conducted on 14 orthodontic journals included in the Scopus database from 2011 to 2020. Studies of both primary and secondary types were targeted by the search. The yearly number of studies published in the 14 journals, and the first 20 countries, institutions and their type (public/private), and authors, respectively, regarding publication volume, were presented.

RESULTS

Over the past ten years, the number of publications in the chosen journals reached 9200, where the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and Angle Orthodontist topped the journal list, with 22% and 12% of the publications, respectively. Furthermore, the orthodontic publication volume showed a declining trend by the end of the decade (-9%), where academic/public institutions produced most of the orthodontic studies, and the US (20%), Brazil (17%), and South Korea (8%) topped the countries with the most orthodontic studies. A comparison of the two halves of the decade revealed that orthodontic research exhibited an increasing trend in developing nations, especially Egypt (104%), Saudi Arabia (88%), and Iran (83%).

CONCLUSION

The orthodontic studies published in the chosen journals over the past ten years showed a dynamic change in yearly publication and ranking of countries, institutions, and authors.

Analysis of Six Orthodontic Journals in Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objective

To analyze the article type, origin, main affiliation, number of publications, authors, and affiliations of six orthodontic journals during two intervals of 5 years each (2006-2010 and 2011-2015).

Methods

In total, 4879 articles examined in this study were screened online at the individual journal's website. The types of articles and their authorship characteristics in the six orthodontic journals [three journals indexed by Science Citation Index (SCI) and the others indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)] were recorded. Parameters were tested using the Pearson chi-square for independence at a 0.05 level of significance.

Results

Among all the article types, research articles were the most published in the orthodontic journals indexed by SCI and SCIE in the first (2006-2010; 88.1% and 77.6%, respectively) and second periods (2011-2015; 84.4% and 74.6%, respectively). In the first and second intervals, the European Union was the most common origin among articles accepted by the journals listed in SCI (30.1% and 29.2% respectively), whereas Asia/Oceania was the common origin among articles accepted by the journals listed in SCIE (44.1% and 43.4%, respectively).

Conclusion

The articles published in the orthodontics journals listed under SCI and SCIE for 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 were significantly different in terms of numbers and characteristics.

Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that the quality of reporting of orthodontic clinical trials is insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trial.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO).

DATA SOURCE

Clinical trials published between 1989 and 1998.

METHOD

A hand search was performed to identify all clinical trials. The concealment of allocation, whether the trial was randomized, double blind, and whether there was a description of withdrawals and dropouts was recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five trial reports were identified of which 4 (2.6%) were adequately concealed, 85 (54.8%) were described as being randomized, 10 (6.5%) as double-blind, and 44 (28.4%) gave a description of withdrawals and drop-outs from the trial. The type of randomization was considered appropriate in 78 (50.3%) reports and in 57 (36.8%) reports the level of blinding was considered appropriate. When assessed for the risk of bias in the reported trials,(1) one trial (0.6%) had a low risk of bias, 17 (11%) a moderate risk, and 137 (88.4%) a high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In general the quality of reporting orthodontic clinical trials was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. Reporting of clinical trials could be improved by orthodontic journals adopting the CONSORT statement(2,)(3) to ensure that all relevant information is provided.

Bibliometric analysis of scientific articles published in Brazilian and international orthodontic journals over a 10-year period

Objective

This study aimed at describing the profiles of Brazilian and international studies published in orthodontic journals.

Methods

The sample comprised 635 articles selected from two scientific journals, i.e., Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics and American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, which were analyzed at three different intervals over a 10-year period (1999 - 2004 - 2009). Articles were described in terms of knowledge domain, study design, and country of origin (or state of origin for Brazilian papers).

Results

The most frequent study designs adopted in international studies were cohort (23.9%) and cross-sectional (21.7%) designs. Among Brazilian papers, cross-sectional studies (28.9%) and literature reviews (24.6%) showed greater frequency. The topics most often investigated were dental materials (17%) and treatment devices (12.4%) in international articles, with the latter topic being addressed by 16% of the Brazilian publications, followed by malocclusion, with 12.6%. In all cases, the most frequent countries of origin coincided with the countries of origin of each journal.

Conclusions

The majority of the studies analyzed featured a low level of scientific evidence. Moreover, the findings showed that journals tend to publish studies produced in their own country of origin, and that there are marked discrepancies in the number of papers published by different Brazilian states.

Exploring the publications in three major orthodontic journals: a comparative analysis of two 5-year periods

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the types of articles and authorship characteristics of three orthodontic journals--American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO)--published between 2008 and 2012 and to assess the differences in content within this period and an earlier period of 1998 to 2002.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Each journal's content was accessed through the web edition. From each article, the following parameters were recorded: article type, number of authors, number of affiliations, source of article (referring to the first author's affiliation), and geographic origin. Descriptive statistics were performed and selected parameters were analyzed with the Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test for independence at the .05 level of significance.

RESULTS

Review of differences between the two periods showed that the number of publications was almost double. The percentages of multi-authored articles increased. Fewer studies derived from the United States/Canada and European Union countries. Increases for articles from non-European Union countries, Asia, and other countries were found. Characteristics of the second period showed that the EJO and AO published more research articles, whereas the AJODO regularly published case reports and other articles. Approximately 75% of all studies derived from orthodontic departments.

CONCLUSIONS

The publications from 1998-2002 and 2008-2012 were significantly different both in terms of numbers and characteristics. Within 2008-2012 there were notable differences between the three journals concerning the type and origin of the publications.

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011

OBJECTIVE

To identify the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals and to analyze their characteristics to investigate the achievement and development of orthodontics research in past decades.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge Database and the 2011 Journal Citation Report Science Editions were used to retrieve the 100 top-cited articles published in orthodontics journals since 1975. Some basic information was collected by the Analyze Tool on the Web of Science, including citation time, publication title, journal name, publication year, and country and institution of origin. A further study was then performed to determine authorship, article type, field of study, study design, and level of evidence.

RESULTS

The 100 target articles were retrieved from three journals: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n  =  74), The Angle Orthodontist (n = 15), and European Journal of Orthodontics (n  =  11). Since 1975, the articles cited 89 to 545 times mainly originated from the United States, and the overwhelming majority of articles were clinical. The most common study design was case series; 40 articles were classified as level IV and 12 as level V evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics are generally old articles, rarely possessing high-level evidence.

Spine deviations and orthodontic treatment of asymmetric malocclusions in children

Background

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to assess the effect of early orthodontic treatment for unilateral posterior cross bite in the late deciduous and early mixed dentition using orthopedic parameters.

Methods

Early orthodontic treatment was performed by initial maxillary expansion and subsequent activator therapy (Münster treatment concept). The patient sample was initially comprised of 80 patients with unilateral posterior cross bite (mean age 7.3 years, SD 2.1 years). After randomization, 77 children attended the initial examination appointment (therapy = 37, control = 40); 31 children in the therapy group and 35 children in the control group were monitored at the follow-up examination (T2). The mean interval between T1 and T2 was 1.1 years (SD 0.2 years). Rasterstereography was used for back shape analysis at T1 and T2. Using the profile, the kyphotic and lordotic angle, the surface rotation, the lateral deviation, pelvic tilt and pelvic torsion, statistical differences at T1 and T2 between the therapy and control groups were calculated (t-test).

Our working hypothesis was, that early orthodontic treatment can induce negative therapeutic changes in body posture through thoracic and lumbar position changes in preadolescents with uniltaral cross bite.

Results

No clinically relevant differences between the control and the therapy groups at T1 and T2 were found for the parameters of kyphotic and lordotic angle, the surface rotation, lateral deviation, pelvic tilt, and pelvic torsion.

Conclusions

Our working hypothesis was tested to be not correct (within the limitations of this study). This randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in a juvenile population with unilateral posterior cross bite the selected early orthodontic treatment protocol does not affect negatively the postural parameters.

Trial registration

DRKS00003497 on DRKS

Clinical trials in orthodontics I: demographic details of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998

AIM

To test the hypothesis that there is insufficient evidence available, from clinical trials, to allow evidence-based decisions to be made on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To identify reports of orthodontic clinical trials and assess their demographic characteristics.

DESIGN

A retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, British Journal of Orthodontics, and European Journal Orthodontics.

DATA SOURCE

Clinical trials published between 1989 and 1998.

METHOD

A hand-search was performed to identify all clinical trials. The journal and year of publication, research method, interventions, and sample size of the trials reported were recorded.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-fifty-five trial reports were identified of which 56 (36.1%) were published from 1989 to 1993 and 99 (69%) from 1994 to 1998. Ninety-nine (69%) reports were published in the AJO-DO, 18 (11.6%) in the BJO and 38 (24.5%) in the EJO. Eighty-five (54.8%) were reports of randomized controlled trials and 70 (45.2%) of controlled clinical trials. The interventions most frequently assessed were bonding materials (21.9%), growth modification treatments (21.3%), and oral hygiene procedures (9.0%). The median sample size was 32 (IQR 19.5, 50).

CONCLUSION

There is sufficient evidence available from clinical trials to warrant doing systematic reviews of orthodontic clinical trials to aid decision-making.

Development and use of a taxonomy to carry out a systematic review of the literature on methods described to effect distal movement of maxillary molars

OBJECTIVE

To devise a taxonomy for the assessment of the orthodontic literature on methods described to effect distal movement of maxillary molars, to test the taxonomy for inter-assessor reliability, and to use it to classify studies in a systematic review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

Articles appearing in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, (British) Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics between 1988 and 1998. Data selection Articles describing or evaluating the effect of appliances known or thought to have a distalizing effect on maxillary molars.

DATA EXTRACTION

A taxonomy was designed, tested by two reviewers independently to assess levels of agreement, and then used to record the features of the articles in a systematic review of the literature.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Kappa scores were used to assess the level of agreement between reviewers and found to be satisfactory. Studies were grouped according to study design and features of their methodology quantified.

CONCLUSIONS

Having devised and tested the taxonomy, we found that the quality of evidence for any method of moving maxillary molars distally was not high.

Development of clinical practice guidelines for dentists: methods for topic selection

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare four methods for assessing the preferences of the dental profession for topics to be considered for the development of clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

The methods were: (1) a survey among dentists, (2) an analysis of topics discussed in dental peer groups, and (3) screening of dental journals. A fourth method was obtained from method number 3. The frequencies of the reported topics were calculated for each of the methods. For the fourth method, the number of publications per topic were plotted against the year of publication, and the slope of the linear regression line was used as an indicator. Within each of the four methods, the topics were ranked according to the frequency in which they were reported, and to the slope value. The reliability of the methods was tested by the "item-rest sum correlation", which is the correlation of the rank positions of one method with the sum of the rank positions obtained by the remaining three methods.

RESULTS

In using all methods, a total of 1027 topics were obtained. Reclassification resulted in 34 topics. Moderate item-rest sum correlations ranging from 0.34 to 0.48 were found for all methods, indicating that the rank order of every method moderately predicts the sum of the rank orders obtained by all other methods. The topic 'prevention of cross-infection' had the highest overall rank position.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the four applied methods appeared to provide a consistent ranking of potential topics. In view of the fact that the questionnaire method is generally applicable, this method should be preferred for assessing dentists' preferences for topics to be considered for the development of clinical practice guidelines.

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites

BACKGROUND

'Posterior crossbite' occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. When it affects one side of the mouth the lower jaw may have to move to one side to allow the back teeth to meet together. This movement may have long term effects on the growth of the teeth and jaws. It is unclear what causes posterior crossbites and they may develop or improve at any time from when the baby teeth come into the mouth to when the adult teeth come through. Several treatments have been recommended to correct them. Some treatments widen the upper teeth whilst others are directed at treating the cause of the posterior crossbite e.g. breathing problems or sucking habits. Most treatments have been used at each stage of dental development.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to identify and evaluate orthodontic treatments used to expand the maxillary dentition and / or correct posterior crossbites.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All randomised and controlled clinical trials identified from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register according to the Oral Health Group Search Strategy and stored in the Cochrane Collaboration Oral Health Group Database of Clinical Trials, a MEDLINE search using the Mesh term and free text words, hand searching the British, European and American journals of orthodontics and Angle Orthodontist, and the bibliographies of papers and review articles which reported the outcome of orthodontic treatment to expand the maxillary dentition and/or correct a posterior crossbite that were published as abstracts or papers between 1970 and 1997 in English.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and controlled clinical trials published as full papers or abstracts which reported quantitative data on the outcomes crossbite correction, molar and/or canine expansion, signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction or respiratory disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted without blinding to the authors, treatments used or results obtained. The first named authors of randomised and controlled clinical trials were written to in an attempt to establish the method of randomisation / allocation and identify unpublished studies. Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals, relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and the number need to treat were calculated for event data. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Using the search strategy 7 randomised and 5 controlled clinical trials were identified but following correspondence with the authors, 3 of the randomised and 1 of the controlled clinical trials were reclassified giving 5 randomised and 7 controlled clinical trials for inclusion in the review. Trials comparing occlusal grinding in the primary dentition with/without an upper removable expansion appliance in the mixed dentition versus no treatment, banded versus bonded rapid maxillary expansion, banded versus bonded slow maxillary expansion, transpalatal arch with/without buccal root torque and an upper removable expansion appliance versus quad-helix were identified. Occlusal grinding in the primary dentition with/without the addition of an upper removable expansion plate, in the mixed dentition for those children who did not respond to grinding, was shown to be effective in preventing a posterior crossbite in the primary dentition from being perpetuated to the mixed and permanent dentitions. No evidence of a difference in treatment effect (molar and canine expansion) between the test and control intervention was found in the trials which compared banded versus bonded rapid maxillary expansion, banded versus bonded slow maxillary expansion, transpalatal arch with/without buccal root torque, or upper removable expansion appliance versus quad-helix. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)