European Journal Of Orthodontics Research Articles

Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of evidence reported in the leading orthodontic journals

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of research reporting of the most recent orthodontic literature published in three of the highest impact factor orthodontic journals. Material and Methods: The American Journals of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Angle Orthodontist (AO) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2018 to March 2022. Trials were evaluated using the consolidated standards of reporting trial (CONSORT) checklist. Independent t-test was used to compare pre-COVID and post-COVID RCTs across CONSORT percentages and to compare journals where those trials were published. Multiple linear regressions were used to study the association of different characteristics with the CONSORT percentage scores. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 117 RCTs were retrieved from the three journals between January 2018 and March 2022. Thesample was classified as 63 pre-COVID studies (53.8%) and 54 (46.2%) post-COVID studies published in three orthodontics journals (27 in AJODO [23.1%], 45 [38.5%] in AO, and 45 [38.5%] in the EJO). The mean percentage of CONSORT compliance was 84.51% ± 14.34%. There was a statistically significant association of CONSORT scores with journals where the trials were published. Compared to AJODO, AO had a lower CONSORT percentage by an average of 18.81, P < 0.001. Independent t-test was performed to compare RCTs pre/post-COVID across CONSORT percentages. It showed no statistically significant difference as the mean compliance was 84.96 ± 16.01 for the pre-COVID studies and 83.99 ± 12.25 for post-COVID (P = 0.711). Conclusion: Overall, CONSORT mean score was 84.51% ± 14.34%. AJODO had the highest CONSORT compliance score while AO had the least compliance score. The quality of reporting of RCTs in orthodontic journals was not affected by the pandemic.

Exploring publications in 3 major orthodontic journals: A comparative bibliometric analysis of two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021)

This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis examining contributing countries and collaborative networks, authors and collaborative relationships, the performance of the institutions, and cocited journals and references in 3 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist) over two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021). In this study, 4432 publications in the first decade and 4012 publications in the second decade were quantitatively analyzed and visualized using visualization software such as VOSviewer (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands), CiteSpace (Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa), and Scimago Graphica (SCImago Lab, Spain). Institutions in the United States had the highest number of publications through the 2 decades, whereas Brazil, South Korea, and China achieved significant improvements in performance in the second decade compared with the first. Closer collaborative networks among scholars were revealedin the second decade. The cocitation analysis of the journals showed that highly cited journals included more professional orthodontic journals in the second decade than in the first decade. Bibliometric analysis of publications in 3 major orthodontic journals over two 10-year periods revealed a trend of diversification in countries and institutions participating in publishing, international collaborations, and collaboration networks among authors in the field of orthodontics during the 2 decades.

Efficiency of Aligners in Correcting Anterior Open Bite: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: The utilization of orthodontic aligners for treating various malocclusions has significantly increased in recent years. However, there is uncertainty regarding the evidence supporting their effectiveness in correcting anterior open bite. Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of clear aligners in correcting anterior open bite based on the available evidence. Materials and methods: A total of three databases (Pubmed, Sciences Direct and Google Scholar) were searched until March 2023, in addition to a manual search in the following journals: the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and the European Journal of Orthodontics. Prospective and retrospective studies assessing the ability of aligners in achieving incisal extrusion and molar intrusion movements published during the last 10 years in English were eligible to be selected. Study selection and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was evaluated using the study quality assesment tool of NHLBI, NIH. The reporting of this review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Nineteen relevant articles were included in the analysis, comprising four prospective non-randomized and fifteen retrospective non-randomized studies. Among these, four studies compared the efficacy of aligners versus fixed appliances in correcting anterior open bite, while fourteen papers evaluated the overall effectiveness of aligners in treating this malocclusion. The risk of bias was categorized as high in one study, moderate in eight studies, and low in ten studies. Extrusion was found to be easily achievable with aligners, with the actual quantity of extrusion often surpassing predictions in the majority of studies. The mean reported extrusion amounted to 1.8mm. Additionally, the mean reported intrusion was 0.75mm. Conclusion: It is evident that aligners are an effective option for the treatment of anterior open bite, this effectiveness is achieved by combining the extrusion and palatal tipping of the anterior segments with the intrusion of the lateral segments, resulting in a counterclockwise rotation of the mandible. Moreover, aligner treatment may be a valid alternative to conventional orthodontic therapy, but it does not appear to provide better control over the vertical dimension compared to fixed orthodontic appliances in adult patients.

Clinical evaluation of marketed and non-marketed orthodontic products: are researchers now ahead of the times? A meta-epidemiological study

BackgroundThe advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored.Material and methodsElectronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored.Results196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected.ConclusionsThe analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.

Maxillary Protraction: A Bibliometric Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this analysis was to investigate the historical development, current status, and research hot spots related to maxillary protraction in the treatment of maxillary hypoplasia. MethodsThe term “TS = maxillary protraction” was used to search for articles in the Web of Science Core Collection at the library of Capital Medical University. The results were analysed using CiteSpace6.2.R1 software, including the examination of annual publication trends and analysis of author, country, institution, and keywords. ResultsA total of 483 papers were included in this study. The annual publications showed an overall increasing trend. The top 5 authors with the most published papers were Lorenzo Franchi, Tiziano Baccetti, Seung-Hak Baek, Paola Cozza, and U Hagg. The top 5 countries with the highest publication counts were the US, Turkey, South Korea, Italy, and China. The top 5 institutions in terms of the number of published papers were the University of Florence, the University of Michigan, Kyung Hee University, Seoul National University, and Gazi University. The top 3 journals with the most citations were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, and the European Journal of Orthodontics. Furthermore, “Maxillary protraction,” “Class III malocclusion,” and “Maxillary expansion” were the most common keywords. ConclusionsThe effective age range for maxillary protraction has been expanded with the introduction of skeletal anchorage and the combination of maxillary expansion and protraction. Skeletal anchorage offers significant advantages over dental anchorage, but there is a need for further research to further substantiate its stability and safety. In recent years, the positive effects of maxillary protraction on the nasopharyngeal area have been well established, but its impact on the oropharyngeal area remains a topic of debate. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct further investigations into the effects of maxillary protraction on the oropharyngeal area and explore the factors that influence different outcomes.

How well do orthodontic RCTs comply with CONSORT guidelines?

To assess the changes in compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in four orthodontic journals. To assess whether reporting of randomization, concealment, and blinding has improved. Electronic hand searching was undertaken to identify orthodontic RCTs published in four orthodontic journals from January 2016 to June 2017 (T1) and from January 2019 to June 2020 (T2). The journals were the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (AJO-DO), Angle Orthodontist (AO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Journal of Orthodontics (JO). Each item on the CONSORT checklist was scored as either reported, not reported, or not applicable for each paper reporting an RCT. The study included 69 papers reporting an RCT published in T1 and 64 RCTs published in T2. The median CONSORT score in T1 was 48.7% (interquartile range [IQR] 27.6%, 68.6%) and 67% in T2 (IQR 43.9%, 79.5%). This increase was statistically significant (P = 0.001) and largely attributable to improved reporting in AO (P = 0.016) and EJO (P = 0.023). Reporting did not change significantly in AJO-DO (P = 0.13) or in JO (P = 1.0). Reporting of random allocation sequence generation (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.01, 4.29) and concealment of allocation (OR 2.27%, 95% CI 1.12, 4.57) were significantly higher in T2 compared with T1. Reporting of blinding did not change significantly. Overall reporting of CONSORT items in reports of orthodontic RCTs published in the AJO-DO, AO, EJO, and JO, improved significantly from 2016-17 to 2019-20. This could be improved further by authors, journal referees, and editors adhering to the guidelines.

The Assessment of the Rank of Torque Control during Incisor Retraction and Its Impact on the Resorption of Maxillary Central Incisor Roots According to Incisive Canal Anatomy-Systematic Review.

Root resorption is one of the complications of orthodontic treatment, and has a varied and unclear aetiology. To evaluate the relationship between upper incisor resorption and contact with the incisive canal and the risk of resorption during orthodontic treatment associated with upper incisor retraction and torque control. According to PRISMA guidelines, the main research question was defined in PICO. Scientific databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for linking keywords: Resorption of roots incisive canal, Resorption of roots nasopalatine canal, Incisive canal retraction and Nasopalatine canal retraction. No time filters were applied due to the significantly limited number of studies. Publications in the English language were selected. Based on the information provided in the abstracts, articles were selected according to the following criteria: controlled clinical prospective trials and case reports. No randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical prospective trials (CCTs) were found. Articles unrelated to the topic of the planned study were excluded. The literature was reviewed, and the following journals were searched: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, Angle Orthodontist, Progress in Orthodontics, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics and Korean Journal of Orthodontics. The articles were subjected to risk of bias and quality assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Four articles with a total of 164 participants were selected. In all studies, differences in root length were observed after contact with the incisive canal, which was statistically significant. The contact of incisor roots with the incisive canal increases the risk of resorption of these roots. IC anatomy should be considered in orthodontic diagnosis using 3D imaging. The risk of resorption complications can be reduced by appropriate planning of the movement and extent of the incisor roots (torque control) and the possible use of incisor brackets with built-in greater angulation. Registration CRD42022354125.

The prevalence of and factors influencing statistical testing of baseline characteristics in randomized controlled trials published in high-impact orthodontic journals

When proper randomization has been undertaken, statistical testing of baseline characteristics between participants in trial arms in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is not required. This investigation aimed to assess the prevalence of statistical testing of baseline differences in orthodontic RCTs. Factors influencing the undertaking of this analysis were explored. Orthodontic RCTs published between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021 in 5 orthodontic journals were identified. To determine if statistical testing of baseline differences had been undertaken, each article was reviewed in detail to identify the reporting of P values and the term "significant difference" in the table of characteristics, the table legends, and the results section of each included RCT. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. Frequency distributions were calculated for the included trial characteristics. Significant predictors from the univariate analysis were used to construct a multivariable Bayesian logistic regression model. One hundred and thirty-two RCTs were analyzed. Significance testing of baseline characteristics was undertaken in 50% (66/132) of RCTs. At a journal level, significance testing at baseline was infrequently undertaken in RCTs published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO). Compared with 2017, RCTs published in 2018 (odds ratio [OR], 5.57; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.33-25.69), 2019 (OR, 17.82; 95% CrI, 4.41-82.11), 2020 (OR, 6.48; 95% CrI, 1.72-27.12), and 2021 (OR, 3.24, 95% CrI, 0.81-14.01) had higher odds of significance testing at baseline. RCTs published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (OR, 5.31; 95% CrI, 1.79-17.04), Progress in Orthodontics (OR, 5.00; 95% CrI, 0.97-28.43), Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (OR, 6.49; 95% CrI, 1.04-46.10), and Angle Orthodontist (OR, 12.30; 95% CrI, 3.27-51.44) had higher odds of significant testing at baseline testing compared with AJODO. Statistical testing of baseline differences is common in orthodontic RCTs. Trials published in AJODO had the lowest incidence of statistical testing of baseline differences. RCTs published between 2018-2021 had higher odds of significance testing at baseline than in 2017. Per the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines, this practice should be discouraged as it can be misleading and unnecessary.

Vibrational Force on Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to systematically gather and analyze the current level of evidence for the effectiveness of the vibrational force in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). This systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar until March 2022. The search was done through the following journals: European Journal of Orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, Progress in Orthodontics, and Seminars in Orthodontics. Human or animal studies that have evaluated the effect of vibrational force on the rate of OTM were selected. A meta-analysis was performed for the rate of canine movement per month. Database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A fixed and random-effect meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of vibrational forces. A total of 19 studies (6 animal and 13 human studies) that met the inclusion criteria were included. Meta-analysis was performed based on four human clinical trials. Three out of four studies showed no significant difference in the rate of canine movement between vibrational force and control groups. The limitation of this study was the small sample size and significant heterogeneity among the studies. Although vibrational forces have been shown to accelerate OTM in experimental studies, the results are inconsistent in clinical studies. The inability to apply desired peak load to the targeted teeth may be the main factor in inconsistent clinical outcomes.

Characterizing the orthodontic research literature: 2020.

To characterize features of the current orthodontic literature. All research articles published in 2020 (N = 350) in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and the European Journal of Orthodontics were categorized on 48 features such as type of study (domain of generalization, subjects, and research design), analytical tools (statistical tests, power and normality of data, consistency of measurement, management of covariables, and corrections of multiple independent tests), and reporting characteristics. Consistency of the coding was high (κ > .990). The "most typical" article was a cohort study reporting multiple patient outcomes at a single treatment location. Soundness of analyses was uneven, with about half providing information on power or normality of the data and consistency of measurement. Few articles addressed covariables or adjusted for multiple tests of independent outcomes. Photos and flow charts were commonly used to explain methods, and results were presented in multiple formats. There was a clear association between design and reporting characteristics and type of study for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and case reports. There were small but consistent differences across the three journals. The quality of the orthodontic research literature has advanced at an uneven pace, and this review identifies areas that could be strengthened. Substantial gaps remain in achieving accepted standards for randomized controlled trials and opportunities exist for better understanding measures of effect through design and analysis using regression techniques to identify sources of variance.

Bibliometric analysis of research publications in three major orthodontic journals during 2012–2021

Objectives: This study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of articles published from 2012 to 2021 in three orthodontic journals: The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). Material and Methods: Eligible articles published from 2012 to 2021 in AJODO, AO, and EJO were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database and subsequently processed using CiteSpace software to generate their characteristics, including authorship, institution, geographic origin, keywords, and citation profiles. Results: The three orthodontic journals published 4001 articles from 370 institutions in 95 countries from 2012 to 2021. The AJODO published the most articles (45.5%) followed by AO (31.3%) and EJO (23.2%). The most prolific country was the United States (US), followed by Brazil, South Korea, China, and Turkey. The authors from the US were heavily engaged in international collaborations, especially with South Korea and Brazil. The country and institutions with the highest citation counts per publication were Italy and the University of Bern (Switzerland), respectively. Pandis N was the most prolific author, and Proffit W was the most-cited author in the 4001 publications. The keywords that emerged most frequently were “children” followed by “orthodontic treatment” and “malocclusion.” Four of the 10 most-cited articles were related to digital dental technology. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis provides a complete picture of the research published in three major orthodontic journals over the past decade. It comprehensively analyzes the authorship, country of origin, institutions, keywords, and citation profiles of the articles.

Tooth auto-transplantation: A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles.

Tooth auto-transplantation has recently gained high clinical acceptance. The aim of this study was to identify the top 100 most-cited articles regarding tooth auto-transplantation, to analyse multiple citations and publication metrics and to outline the historical scientific advancements in this field. An advanced search of the Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'Core Collection' and Elsevier's Scopus databases utilising specific keywords related to tooth auto-transplantation between 1971 and 2021 was performed. The retrieved articles were ranked in descending order based on their Web of Science citation counts and further cross-matched with citation data from Scopus. The extracted data included citation counts, citation density, level of evidence, year of publication, contributing authors names and institutes, corresponding author's address, journal of publication, journal local citations index, cumulative growth index, keywords and keywords Plus. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and graphical mapping. A total of 1290 articles were retrieved. The top 100 most-cited articles received a total of 4899 (Web of Science) and 5250 (Scopus) citations. Among these, cohort studies (29%) and case series (18%) were the most common study designs. Scandinavian countries produced major contributions in defining the top 100 most-cited articles and ranked within the top 5 countries based on the number of publications and citations per year. The greatest contributing authors were Schwartz O (n= 12), Andreasen JO (n= 8) and Paulsen HU (n= 6), and they were affiliated with Copenhagen, Denmark. The top contributing journals were American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology, European Journal of Orthodontics, Dental Traumatology and Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. This bibliometric analysis revealed a large geographical scientific interest and broad development in the field of tooth auto-transplantation spanning multiple dental disciplines.

Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade.

To assess the representation of female authors in senior and leading positions in orthodontic research publications, as well as the fraction of women participating in the publication reports, for over a decade. In addition, association of women representation in orthodontic research and characteristics such as journal of publication, year, study design/topic, and others, were sought. Electronic search was performed within three major orthodontic journals, namely the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), and the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE) to identify all types of research articles published within two distinct year cohorts, the 2008-10 and the 2018-20. The outcomes of interest pertained to proportion of women in senior (last) and leading (first) position, and fraction of overall participation in the author list. A total of 2539 articles were eligible for inclusion, with an overall number of contributing authors being 11 608, of which 34.4% were female. For seniority in authorship, 30.1% (312/1038) of the publications within 2018-20 were attributed to female authors, while 25.8% (388/1501) was identified in 2008-10. Publication timeline, geographic region, and thematic topic of publication were determined as significant predictors. For leading (first) authorship, the respective percentages were 44.7% (464/1038) within 2018-20, and 34.7% (521/1501) in 2008-10. Dissemination timeline, geographic region and journal of publication were identified by the multivariable analysis, as revealing evidence of association with female leading publication authorship. Overall, the median proportion of female authors within the author list was 33.0%. A gender gap related to Orthodontic research publications is persistent, with participation of women either as senior, or as leading authors, being suboptimal. Consistent efforts should be set in place, to facilitate more equal representation of women in research publishing, being supported by academia.

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020.

To assess the prevalence of and identify factors associated with SPIN in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses. Electronic search was performed within the contents of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify meta-analyses of studies involving humans, from 1 January 2000 until 31 August 2020. Inclusion of SPIN in the abstract of meta-analyses, defined as misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and inappropriate extrapolation of the findings, was documented. Extent of SPIN and associations with journal and year of publication, type of study, number of authors, continent of authorship, methodologist involvement, funding, and significance of the primary outcome were investigated. One hundred and nine meta-analyses were identified, with the highest proportion being published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO: 31/109; 28.4%). Inclusion of SPIN, in at least one domain, was recorded in nearly half (53/109; 48.6%) of the studies, of which 30 (56.6%) included 2 or more domains of SPIN. Meta-analyses of observational studies presented 1.66 times higher risk for including SPIN in their abstracts compared with interventional ones [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.14, 2.40; P = 0.007], after adjusting for a number of predictors. Studies with a large number of authors (≥6) presented 1.76 times higher risk of SPIN (≥6 versus 1-3: 95% CIs: 1.04, 2.97; Wald test, P = 0.021), conditional on the pre-defined predictors. Flaws in the reporting and interpretation of the findings of abstracts of meta-analyses, as framed by inclusion of SPIN are persistent in orthodontic research, being more prevalent in meta-analyses of observational studies. Consistent, multidirectional efforts should be endorsed to improve the quality of the disseminated research findings.

Social versus scientific-driven evidence-based orthodontics: Prediction of correlation among scientometric, altmetric, and level of evidence

Aim: The present study was conducted to analyze the correlation between citations, altmetric score, and level of evidence of top prestigious orthodontic journals. Materials and Methods: Data mining of selected journals American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Angle Orthodontist (AO) was carried out using the Dimensions and the Webometric Analyst 4.1. The scores were correlated against the strength of study grades, which were interpreted from the GRADE criteria. Pearson's correlation test was used to assess the data statistically using the SPSS software version 21. Results: AJODO (3786) produced maximum publications followed by AO (1515) and EJO (1135). Most of the publications of AJODO (3654) were under “closed access,” whereas AO (194) provided the maximum of its publications under open access in comparison to EJO (151) and AJODO. It was also found that “Clinical Sciences” category had the maximum number of publications in all. The AO had maximum “mean” of field citation ratio (FCR) and relative citation ratio (RCR) (Mean FCR = 1.78/Mean RCR = 1.68) and AJODO received maximum total attention on social platform. The EJO showed the highest Pearson correlation value of 0.39 between citations and Altmetric, whereas AJODO showed the highest value of 0.16 for citations and grade of evidence. Conclusion: The present study found that the Altmetric score and level of evidence among all the three journals showed slight positive correlation by EJO and weak correlation by AJODO and AO in relation to citation and Altmetrics. However, weak positive correlation by AJODO and EJO in relation to citations and grade of evidence. It was found that only AO showed positive weak correlation between Altmetric score and grade of evidence.

Relationship between European postgraduate programme accreditation and national research output: The case of the Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) in orthodontics. A bibliometric study.

To assess in each European country the correlation between the number of Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) members and orthodontic research activity. Secondary objectives were to describe and quantify Europe's orthodontic research. Articles published between 2014 and 2018 in 4 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, The Angle Orthodontist, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research) and oral presentation abstracts of five European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses were analysed. For each European country, the total number of orthodontic programmes and NEBEOP memberships were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed, and Spearman correlation coefficients and risk ratios were calculated. 2039 articles and 261 oral presentation abstracts were included. Correlation coefficients between national number of publications, oral presentations, sum of these, all adjusted for population, and number of NEBEOP members in each country were 0.64, 0.65 and 0.62, respectively. Risk ratios were all above 1 and statistically significant for number of NEBEOP memberships per country, indicating positive associations with national orthodontic research productivity. Europe accounted for 30.5% of publications and 68.6% of oral presentations at EOS congresses during this period. European orthodontic research was not evenly distributed, since 9 countries were responsible for around 80% of the output. A positive association was found between number of NEBEOP programmes and national research activity. These results could be an additional argument to support similar pan-European initiatives and guidelines for postgraduate education, not only in orthodontics but in all other dental specialties.

The online attention to orthodontic research: an Altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018

BackgroundTo describe the impact of research, beyond the limits of the academic environment, Altmetric, a new social and traditional media metric was proposed. The aims of this study were to analyze the online activity related to orthodontic research via Altmetric and to assess if a correlation exists among citations, Mendeley reader count, and the AAS (Altmetric Attention Score).MethodThe Dimensions App was searched for articles published in the orthodontic journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) throughout the years 2014 to 2018. The articles with a positive AAS were collected and screened for data related to publication and authorship. The articles with an AAS higher than 5 were screened for research topic and study design. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus.ResultsThe best performing journals were Progress in Orthodontics and the European Journal of Orthodontics with a mean AAS per published item of 1.455 and 1.351, respectively and the most prevalent sources were Tweets and Facebook mentions. The most prevalent topic was Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQOL) and the study design was systematic reviews. The correlation between the AAS and the citations in both WOS and Scopus was poor (r = 0.1463 and r = 0.1508, p < .05). The correlation between citations count and Mendeley reader (r = 0.6879 and r = 0.697, p < .05) was moderate.ConclusionsFew journals displayed a high level of web activity. Journals and editors should enhance online dissemination of the scientific outputs. The authors should report the impact of the findings to the general public in a convenient way to facilitate online dissemination but to avoid an opportunistic use of the research outputs. Despite the lack of correlation, a combination of the citation count and the AAS can give a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.

Unsafe Chewing: Choking and Other Risks

Unsafe Chewing: Choking and Other Risks

Current trends in orthodontic journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. A bibliometric study

The aim of this study is to analyze articles published in orthodontic journals included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to determine current trends in orthodontic publishing. Articles included in orthodontic journals in 2016 JCR and published during 2007-2017 were selected. After applying inclusion criteria, author-based parameters (article title, first author's name, institution and sex, number of authors, number of affiliations, first author's origin, and geographic origin), article-based parameters (article type, main topic, and research design), and the number of cites and self-cites were registered for each article. A total of 7119 articles were analyzed, and 842 different centers and 4483 different authors were identified. The percentage of female authors showed a tendency to increase over the decade; the most productive country was the United States (17.4%). Bone anchorage was the most recurrent topic (7.2%). More than three-fourths of articles (80.8%) proceeded from orthodontic departments belonging to public institutions, with a decreasing trend in nonacademic or private affiliations. Positive and negative correlations were found to exist between citation counts and other variables. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, and European Journal of Orthodontics were the 3 main journals with regard to production volume, with the United States being the most productive country. The most recurrent topic was bone anchorage, and most of the studies were research articles with observational cross-sectional design. Study design, geographic origin of the articles, article type, and the main subject of the article may be predictive of citation numbers.

A priori power considerations in orthodontic research: a 3 year meta-epidemiologic study.

To assess the prevalence of a priori power calculations in orthodontic literature and to identify potential associations with a number of study characteristics, including journal, year of publication and statistical significance of the outcome. The electronic archives of four leading orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, AJODO; European Journal of Orthodontics, EJO; Angle Orthodontist, ANGLE; Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, OCR) were assessed over a 3 year period until December 2018. The proportion of articles reporting a priori power calculations were recorded, and the association with journal, year of publication, study design, continent of authorship, number of centres and researchers, statistical significance of results and reporting of confidence intervals (CIs) was assessed. Univariable and multivariable regression were used to identify significant predictors. Overall, 654 eligible articles were retrieved, with the majority published in the AJODO (n = 246, 37.6%), followed by ANGLE (n = 222, 33.9%) and EJO (n = 139, 21.3%). A total of 233 studies (35.6%) presented power considerations a priori along with sample size calculations. Study design was a very strong predictor with interventional design presenting 3.02 times higher odds for a priori power assumptions compared to observational research [odds ratio (OR): 3.02; 95% CIs: 2.06, 4.42; P < 0.001]. Presentation of a priori power considerations for sample size calculations was not universal in contemporary orthodontic literature, while specific study designs such as observational or animal and in vitro studies were less likely to report such considerations.