Journal Of Clinical Periodontology Research Articles

Bibliometric analysis of the association between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease

PurposeConduct a bibliometric analysis to review the knowledge structure and research trends regarding the association between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD). MethodsThe Web of Science Core collection database was searched for retrieving publications related to periodontitis and CVD between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2022. The VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R software package “bibliometrix” were employed for the bibliometric analysis. ResultsIn total, 3447 articles were collected from 98 countries over the past 20 years, with the United States (1,003), Japan (377), and China (321) contributing the most publications. The literature in this field exhibited exponential growth. The University of Helsinki (n = 125, 1.37 %) holds the distinction of being the research institution with the highest number of publications, with a predominant representation from institutions in the United States. Notably, the Journal of Periodontology emerges as the most popular journal in the field, whereas the Journal of Clinical Periodontology takes the lead in terms of citations. These publications originated from 15,236 authors, with Pussinen (n = 40) having the highest number of published papers and Tonetti (n = 976) garnering the most citations. The visualization analysis of keywords identified “oral microbiome,” “inflammation,” and “porphyromonas gingivalis” as emerging research hotspots in exploring the relationship between periodontitis and CVDs. ConclusionThrough a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, this study posits that periodontitis may heighten the risk of cardiovascular events, offering valuable academic references for scholars investigating the link between periodontitis and CVDs.

Global trends in research on aging associated with periodontitis from 2002 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis.

Aging has been implicated in many chronic inflammatory diseases, including periodontitis. Periodontitis is an inflammatory disease caused by long-term irritation of the periodontal tissues by the plaque biofilm on the surface of the teeth. However, only a few bibliometric analyses have systematically studied this field to date. This work sought to visualize research hot spots and trends in aging associated with periodontitis from 2002 to 2023 through bibliometric approaches. Graphpad prism v8.0.2 was used to analyse and plot annual papers, national publication trends and national publication heat maps. In addition, CtieSpace (6.1.6R (64-bit) Advanced Edition) and VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) were used to analyse these data and visualize the scientific knowledge graph. The number of documents related to aging associated with periodontitis has steadily increased over 21 years. With six of the top ten institutions in terms of publications coming from the US, the US is a major driver of research in this area. journal of periodontology is the most published journal in the field. Tonetti MS is the most prolific authors and co-cited authors in the field. Journal of Periodontology and Journal of Clinical Periodontology are the most popular journals in the field with the largest literature. Periodontitis, Alzheimer's disease, and peri-implantitis are current hot topics and trends in the field. Inflammation, biomarkers, oxidative stress cytokines are current research hotspots in this field. Our research found that global publications regarding research on aging associated with periodontitis increased dramatically and were expected to continue increasing. Inflammation and aging, and the relationship between periodontitis and systemic diseases, are topics worthy of attention.

Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Three of the Most Citable Periodontal Journals from 2018 to 2022.

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Three leading periodontology journals, the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR), were selected for this investigation. The RCTs were identified by manually searching for human trial articles published in these three journals. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, and a pre-piloted extraction sheet was used to screen the potential RCTs. The CONSORT checklist guidelines were employed to calculate the score value. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed by scoring a random sample of 10% of the papers in a second round conducted by the first examiner three months after the initial data collection. A search of abstracts published over a five-year period yielded 176 articles that reported RCTs, accounting for 11.7% of all articles published in the three journals. The highest number of RCTs was published in 2020, and more than half of the included RCTs (51%) originated from Europe. Many of the analyzed RCTs inadequately reported almost half of the items on the CONSORT checklist. Furthermore, univariate analysis revealed significant associations between certain factors and the overall CONSORT score, such as publication in JOP (p = 0.048), publication year of 2019 (p = 0.041) and 2021 (p = 0.042), first author from North America (p = 0.016), and RCTs with more than six authors (p = 0.042). Clinical trial research in periodontics has made significant progress in the past five years. However, there is room for improvement in adhering to the CONSORT guidelines.

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Antibiotics in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE via Pubmed; EMBASE via Ovid; EBSCO Dentistry and Oral Science Source), in addition to six related journals (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research; Clinical Oral Implants Research; International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants; International Journal of Oral Implantology; Journal of Clinical Periodontology; Journal of Periodontology), were searched for publications until 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the effectiveness of local or systemic antibiotics as an adjunct in the non-surgical treatment (NST) for peri-implantitis (PI), were assessed. The eligibility criteria included RCTs with a parallel group, split-mouth design and appropriate NST interventions over a three to twelve month period. Data were extracted from RCTs to capture a multitude of primary outcomes, including: implant success rate, radiographic marginal bone loss rate, periodontal health changes and PI resolution. Risk of bias assessments were made using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, by two authors independently and in duplicate. RCTs with similar observation periods and interventions were included in the meta-analyses. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences or relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, in additional to data heterogeneity calibration through I2 statistics. Following the screening of 270 papers, six RCTs were included, which resulted in the evaluation of 391 patients (375 implants). Adjunctive local antibiotic therapy at disease sites showed statistically significant periodontal outcomes; improvements in success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84), probing pocket depth (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78) and bleeding on probing (MD = 0.15%; 95% CI 0.10-0.19). Conversely, adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved probing pocket depths (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and probing attachment levels only (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Across the six included RCTs, the bone loss rate and PI resolution rate determined no significant differences between the groups; mirrored in the single studies and in the meta-analysis. Disease resolution ranged from 2 to 65%. Two of the studies were found to be at low risk of bias and four presented with some concerns. Adjunctive antibiotics aid NST. However, the heterogeneity of study methods and low quality of current RCTs evidenced, deem their role in NSTs of PI as inconclusive.

Bibliometric analysis on research trends for contribution of photodynamic therapy in periodontitis

BackgroundThe objective of this bibliometric analysis was to ascertain the research trend regarding the application of photodynamic therapy as a treatment modality for periodontal disease. MethodsAn online search was administered using the Scopus database to retrieve all the relevant research literature published from 2003 till 26th Dec 2022. After applying the inclusion criteria articles pertinent to the topic were manually selected. Data was saved as CSV. Data was read using VOSviewer software and further analysis was performed using Microsoft excel. ResultsFrom a total of 545 articles, 117 scientific papers relevant to the field were evaluated. The keen interest of researchers was identified by an increase in the number of publications over the course of time, with the highest citations n = 827 attained during the year 2009. Brazil, India, and USA made significant contribution by publishing highest number of papers. Organizations from the USA produced the highest publications which attained high citations. Author Sculean A. published the highest number of papers. Journal of periodontology was the leading journal, by publishing highest number of papers (n = 15), followed by Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ConclusionThis bibliometric analysis provided detailed information regarding the total number of publications from 2003 to 2022 and the number of citations attained. Brazil has been identified as the leading country, whilst all the leading organizations which contributed significantly, were from USA. The Journal of Periodontology published the highest number of papers which had been highly cited. Sculean A, affiliated with University of Bern, Switzerland published the highest number of papers.

Editorial: Core outcome sets and measures for clinical trials in implant dentistry

Journal of Clinical PeriodontologyVolume 50, Issue S25 p. 4-4 INVITED EDITORIAL Editorial: Core outcome sets and measures for clinical trials in implant dentistry Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Corresponding Author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-8265 International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia Discipline of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The university of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorPanos N. Papapanou, Corresponding Author Panos N. Papapanou [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-3618 Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Corresponding Author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-8265 International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia Discipline of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The university of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorPanos N. Papapanou, Corresponding Author Panos N. Papapanou [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-3618 Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 26 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13810 This manuscript was simultaneously and jointly published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Clinical Oral Implants Research Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume50, IssueS25Supplement: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) International Consensus ReportMay 2023Pages 4-4 RelatedInformation

Editorial: Core outcome sets and measures for clinical trials in implant dentistry

Clinical Oral Implants ResearchVolume 34, Issue S25 p. 3-3 INVITED EDITORIAL Editorial: Core outcome sets and measures for clinical trials in implant dentistry Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Corresponding Author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-8265 International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia Discipline of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The university of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorPanos N. Papapanou, Corresponding Author Panos N. Papapanou [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-3618 Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, Corresponding Author Lisa Heitz-Mayfield [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-8265 International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia Discipline of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The university of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorPanos N. Papapanou, Corresponding Author Panos N. Papapanou [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-6538-3618 Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Correspondence Panos N. Papapanou, Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 630 W 168th Street, PH-7E-110, New York, NY 10032, USA. Email: [email protected] Lisa Heitz-Mayfield, International Research Collaborative, Oral Health and Equity, School of Human Anatomy and Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 26 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14075 This manuscript was simultaneously and jointly published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Clinical Oral Implants Research Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume34, IssueS25Special Issue: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID‐COSM) International Consensus ReportMay 2023Pages 3-3 RelatedInformation

A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100 MOST CITED ARTICLES IN TOP RANKED DENTAL JOURNAL

Aim: To review the notable characteristics of the 100 most cited articles in dental journals with the highest impact factor according to journal citation reports 2021 by Clarivate analytics.&#x0D; Methods: From the Web of Science database, the impact factor of dental journals was collected. Then, the top 100 cited articles from the top-ranked dental journal were retrieved from the Web of Science database up to June 2021 and cross-matched with Scopus and Google scholar. The following data were gathered for each article including the number of citations, title, year of publication, authors, country and institute, study design, the strength of supporting evidence, and area of research.&#x0D; Results: Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP) had the greatest impact factor of 8.728 in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine category. The 100 most cited articles in JCP were published between 1974 and 2018, with the numbers of citations ranging from 2652 to 257 (Web of Science), 2754 to 207 (Scopus), and 4965 to 344 (Google scholar). Lindhe J tops the list with 29 articles followed by Socransky SS with 15. Gothenburg University, Sweden took the leading position with 27 articles followed by Forsyth Dental Centre, United States with 12. The list was represented mainly by articles with experimental study designs and level-I evidence. Surgical periodontal therapy was the most studied thematic area.&#x0D; Conclusions: Our findings reveal trends and preferences in the research component of a top-ranked journal in dentistry. There is considerable evidence of exceedingly citable articles with superior research design and a high level of evidence being published.

How do periodontal indices compare among non-smokers, tobacco and e-cigarette smokers?

Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sources Medline (PubMed), ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Additionally, the following journals were hand-searched between 2000 and December 2021: Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Clinical Oral Investigations, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. Citations of included articles and relevant systematic reviews were also screened.Study selection Cross-sectional and observational studies were included which compared periodontal indices in non-smokers, tobacco and e-cigarette smokers. A minimum sample of 25 patients in each group was required, as was reporting of bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque indices (PI) and probing depth (PD) outcomes.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent authors examined titles, abstracts and full texts of relevant articles against the inclusion criteria, with any disagreements resolved by discussion, or a third reviewer. Data was collected using an Excel spreadsheet and risk of bias assessed via the NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Results were pooled and checked for suitability before network meta-analysis for each separate outcome.Results In total, 279 studies were screened from electronic and hand searching with 28 full text articles assessed for eligibility. Twenty-three were excluded at full text, with five included for quantitative synthesis and review. The included studies incorporated a total of 512 patients encompassing 170 non-smokers, 176 tobacco smokers (mean duration 10.7 years) and 166 e-cigarette smokers (mean duration 3.7 years). All studies were based in Saudi Arabia only and 99% of patients were male with mean ages 37.8 (non-smokers), 39.5 (tobacco) and 33.5 (e-cigarette). No studies adjusted for key confounding variables, which limited risk of bias to fair or good in all cases. Meta-analysis suggested PD and PI were significantly worse in tobacco smokers compared to both non-smokers and e-cigarette smokers. BOP was significantly reduced in both smoking groups versus non-smokers.Conclusions Notwithstanding the limitations of this review, there is some evidence that supports accepted understanding that tobacco smoking can compromise periodontal health. E-cigarette smoking in this cohort showed no significant difference to non-smokers in terms of probing depth or plaque index and may be a safer source of nicotine for patients in terms of periodontal health. Greater understanding may be drawn from analysis of randomised controlled trials in wider populations that account for important confounding variables.

Editorial: From Passive to Active Regeneration: The New Gold Standard in Bone and Soft Tissue Grafting

Editorial: From Passive to Active Regeneration: The New Gold Standard in Bone and Soft Tissue Grafting

The Top 100 Most Cited Articles Published in Dentistry: 2020 Update.

This bibliometric review is aimed to analyze the top 100 most-cited publications in dentistry and to compare its outcomes. A literature search was performed using Elsevier’s Scopus, without any restriction of language, publication year, or study design. Of 336,381 articles, the top 100 were included based on their citation count, which ranged from 638 to 4728 citations (Feijoo et al., 326 to 2050). The most productive decade was the 2000s, with 40 articles on the list (Feijoo et al., 1980s: 26). Marx RE (7%) was the major contributor in this study (Feijoo et al., Socransky SS: 9%), and almost half (48%) of articles were from the USA. Of the top 100 articles, 26% focused on periodontology (Feijoo et al., periodontology: 43%), while 17% of the total were published in the Journal of Dental Research (Feijoo et al., Journal of Clinical Periodontology: 20%). Most of the publications were narrative reviews/expert opinion (36%), (Feijoo et al., case series: 22%), and were within the evidence level V (64%) (Feijoo et al., 54%). The citation count that a paper secures is not necessarily a reflection of research’s quality, however, the current analysis provides the latest citation trends in dentistry.

Highly cited papers in dental medicine based on essential science indicators

Introduction/Objective. Essential Science Indicators (ESI) Highly Cited Papers (HCPs) refer to the most influential scientific articles and breakthrough research within a research field in the past decade. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of ESI HCPs in the subject category Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, to recognize authors, institutions and countries of origin, and determine research trends that attracted the most scientific interest in dentistry. Methods. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, network extraction and visualization were completed. Furthermore, analyzed ESI HCPs were classified according to a field of interest, main research domain, type of study, and level of evidence. Results. The set of 185 dental HCPs was published in 42 journals from 2010 to 2020, with an average number of 211.7 citations per paper. Nearly half of HCPs were issued by the Journal of Dental Research, Dental Materials, and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. There were 765 authors affiliated with 351 institutions from 42 countries. The most productive institutions were the University of Hong Kong, the University of Michigan, and the University of Bern. The United States of America contributed with the highest number of publications, followed by China, and the United Kingdom. Dental materials, dental implantology, periodontology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery represented areas of significant interest within this subject category. The highest proportion of HCPs were narrative and systematic reviews, expert opinions, consensus reports, and in vitro ?r lab studies. Conclusion. Results obtained from this study can provide valuable information for researchers to better identify present and future hotspots in dental research.

Which type of soft tissue augmentation at dental implant sites is best supported by evidence?

Data sources PubMed, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Embase. Additionally, issues of the following journals between 2000 and April 2019 were hand-searched: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, International Journal of Periodontology and Restorative Dentistry, European Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, and Clinical Oral Implants Research.Study selection Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving soft tissue augmentation at dental implant sites were considered for inclusion. The selection was restricted to RCTs published in English language with at least ten patients per group and a minimum follow-up period of three months. A PICO method was used to organise the inclusion criteria and soft tissue augmentations were clustered into three groups; that is, before prosthetic treatment, after prosthetic treatment and at immediate implant placement.Data extraction and synthesis The screening of titles and abstracts was carried out by two reviewers and disagreements were moderated by a third reviewer. Eligibility was determined using full texts and data were extracted using purposefully designed forms. The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions toolkit was used to assess the risk of bias. The studies were grouped according to the type of intervention and subjected to quantitative data synthesis. Continuous outcome measures were assessed using random-effects meta-analyses and pooled estimates were expressed as weighted mean differences (MDs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results Following initial electronic and hand-searches, 2,119 studies were screened for title and abstract, and 32 studies were considered for full-text screening. Only 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and the remaining 18 studies were excluded from the systematic review. The included studies described soft tissue augmentation for 538 implants placed in 475 patients. Three studies (68 patients; 78 implants) reported improved soft tissue thickness with xenogenic collagen matrix (XCM) augmentation compared to no augmentation at the implant sites before prosthetic treatment (high/unclear risk of bias). One study (28 patients; 41 implants) reported improved height of keratinised tissue (KT) and marginal bone levels (MBLs) with free gingival graft (FGG) compared to no augmentation at the implant sites after prosthetic treatment (unclear risk of bias). Three RCTs (126 patients; 126 implants) focused on connective tissue grafting (CTG) and bone grafting versus no grafting in conjunction with immediate implant placement after tooth extraction (unclear risk of bias). There was no difference in MBLs in any of the studies, while one study showed superior soft tissue thickness (STT). Four RCTs (129 patients; 133 implants) compared different augmentation techniques before prosthetic treatment. Only one study showed improved STT with CTG compared to XCM (low risk of bias). Finally, three RCTs (124 patients; 160 implants) compared different augmentation techniques after prosthetic treatment (high/unclear risk of bias). FGG was observed to be superior to acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and vestibuloplasty to improve KT. Meta-analyses did not favour CTG to improve MBLs at extraction sites but CTG was superior to XCM to improve STT before prosthetic treatment.Conclusions Notwithstanding the limitations of the systematic review, soft tissue augmentation significantly enhances the amount of soft tissue at the implant site. CTG at the extraction site also improves subsequent bone level of the implants. Moreover, CTG before prosthetic treatment is superior to XCM to improve thickness of peri-implant soft tissues. However, these findings are based on short-term follow-up and future studies with improved methodology are required to establish the long-term benefits of soft tissue augmentation at the dental implant sites.

Are published randomized clinical trials abstracts on periodontics reported adequately?

IntroductionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) remain the golden standard in biomedical research, which makes their reporting to a high quality essential to control RCTs’ internal validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of abstract reporting of RCTs published in periodontic journals and their compliance with the CONSORT guidelines. MethodsA hand search was undertaken to identify RCTs published in three periodontic journals [1] Journal of periodontology (JOP) [2], the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) and [3] the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) from 2015 to 2018.The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. ResultsAbstracts of 177 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. The distribution of published reports was in the Journal of periodontology (JOP), (42%) the Journal of periodontal research (JOPR) (7%) and the Journal of clinical periodontology (JOCP) (51%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 49.0%(95% CI: 47.7–50.2%). Most of the abstracts (91–100%) clearly reported and described the study design as randomized in the RCTs' title and recruitment status, as well as study interventions, objective(s), outcome(s) and conclusions. There was insufficient description and reporting of the authors’ contact details, trial design, method of randomization, blinding, number of analyzed participants per group, harms, trial registration and source of funding. ConclusionsThe quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the current guidelines of reporting RCTs abstracts, efforts should be made to better reporting.

The clinical benefit of adjunctive antibiotics alongside non-surgical periodontal therapy with respect to periodontopathogenic bacteria?

Data sources The following electronic databases were searched with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Reference lists of included studies were searched, alongside the Open Grey database and hand searches in Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Journal of Periodontal Research. The editor of each journal was contacted to enquire about relevant accepted and forthcoming articles.Study selection Two independent reviewers screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least six months. The main outcome was the change in periodontal pocket depths (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) six months after treatment, where patients were divided according to adjunctive treatment (antimicrobial vs placebo) as well as the pre-treatment detection of periodontopathogenic bacteria.Data extraction and synthesis Data was extracted from all selected papers using a standardised form, including treatment methods, antimicrobial regime and bacterial detection methods. The Cochrane Collaborations tool was used to assess risk of bias. The weighted mean difference (WMD) of treatment effects between bacterial detection groups was obtained and pooled. A two-stage, fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed, and statistical heterogeneity was described using the Q-statistic and I2 index.Results Following the screening of 643 papers and author contact, five placebo-controlled studies were included in the systematic review. All had a low risk of bias. They varied in patient sample sizes, periodontal diagnoses, subgingival debridement protocols, antimicrobial regimes, as well as baseline microbial analysis methods. The meta-analysis of four studies, using amoxicillin and metronidazole as adjuncts, revealed a significant increase in the reduction of PPDs compared to placebo. It also showed no significant difference in the clinical effect on PPDs ≥5 mm when prescribing adjunctive amoxicillin and metronidazole based on the pre-treatment detection of A. actinomycetemcomitans (WMD = 1.16, 95% CI [-5.37, 7.68], I2 = 37.8%).Conclusions Although data on baseline periodontopathogenic bacteria was limited to A. actinomycetemcomitans, this systematic review suggests that there is not enough evidence to support the use of pre-treatment analysis of subgingival bacteria as a criterion for prescribing adjunctive antibiotics.

Which is the best antibiotic prophylaxis protocol to prevent early implant failures?

Selection criteria The inclusion criteria of this systematic review were patients undergoing dental implant placement. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared placebo, no antibiotic and/or any type of antibiotics, administered pre-operatively, intra-operatively, post-operatively or combinations of these, at any dose and for any duration were considered eligible. Included RCTs were required to have a follow up period of at least three months with at least 20 patients per treatment arm. No restrictions on date of publication or language were applied.Key study factor Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL and Web of Knowledge) in addition to six related journals (Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Journal of Periodontology, European Journal of Oral Implantology, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants) were searched in duplicate for RCTs up to July 2017. Additional relevant literature was identified through hand-searching of reference lists, and through grey literature databases. Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts . Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed simultaneously by two reviewers independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. A Network Meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted by integrating direct and indirect comparisons and the probability that each protocol was optimal was estimated. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were planned to test the effect of risk of bias and of different variables on the results, but were not conducted due to the limited number of included studies.Main outcome measure Outcomes analysed were adverse events and early implant failures, defined as removal of mobile or stable implants with progressive marginal bone loss or infection in the first year after placement.Main results A total of 2248 RCTs were identified after removing duplicates, nine of which were finally included. Different protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis were compared with a total number of 1,693 participants. Seven of the included trials compared the use of one or more protocols of antibiotic prophylaxis with no prophylaxis or prophylaxis with a placebo, and two trials compared the use of different protocols, without the use of a no prophylaxis/placebo group. Amoxicillin was the only type used in all studies. Doses and timing varied among studies, although most of them used a single dose taken just before the implant placement. For the investigated outcomes, two trials were considered at low risk of bias and seven at high risk of bias.All protocols were more effective in reducing implant failures compared to placebo/no antibiotic (mean OR 0.08 to 0.45). Meta-analysis of direct comparison was only possible for the four trials comparing 2 g amoxicillin one hour preoperatively (B) to no antibiotic or placebo (A), indicating B as more effective (pulled OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19-0.88; heterogeneity chi-squared 1.40, P = 0.706). These results were consistent with NMA effect estimates (mean OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.0210.93). A single dose of 3 g of amoxicillin administered one hour pre-operatively (C) was statistically more effective in reducing implant failures if compared to no prophylaxis/placebo (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.180.91) and was considered as the most effective protocol. The single dose of 2 g of amoxicillin administered one hour pre-operatively was less effective than protocol C. Adverse events could not be studied in a meta-analysis due to an insufficient number of trials reporting it.Conlusions Implant patients are likely to benefit from antibiotis being administered one hour preoperatively in a dose of 3 g orally. The use of post-operative antibiotics does not seem, however, to be justified.

Top 100 cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dentistry

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to identify the 100 top cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses on dental journals so as to gain insight into the influential publications in dentistry.Material and methods: The Web of Science was used to comprehensively identify the 100 most cited papers without year and language restriction. Specific parameters regarding the title, journal, publication year, authors, country of origin, institution and university, collaborations, keyword analysis and field of study of each manuscript were retrieved.Results: The citations ranged from 642 to 140. The most productive years were 2008 and 2009. The majority of top cited papers were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. The leading countries were United States, followed by Switzerland. The University of Zurich was the most productive institution with 8 articles. Major topics of interest in the top 100 most-cited papers were dental implants and periodontology. The most frequently occurring keywords were systematic review, dental implants and meta-analyses.Conclusions: Systematic reviews published in high impact factor Dental journals focused on implantology and periodontology had the highest citation rates. Obviously, the top cited list is dynamic, as scientific interests and research tendencies evolve over the years.

WITHDRAWN: Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects.

WITHDRAWN: Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects.

HIV status does not worsen oral health outcomes.

Last January 31st, Journal of Clinical Periodontology just made available the report titled "A Retrospective Analysis of Dental Implant Survival in HIV Patients," which concluded that "implants placed in HIV-positive patients had similar survival rates as HIV-negative patients." These data support our hypothesis that infection by HIV does not lead to worse oral health outcomes, including worse periodontitis. We looked 6,092 individuals and selected all HIV-positive subjects (N=73) and matched them by age, sex, ethnicity, and smoking habits with 261 HIV-negative control subjects. Based on these 334 total individuals, several dental conditions, including the need for root canal treatment, gingivitis, periodontitis, hairy leukoplakia, and dental caries were compared between the two groups. Overall, there was no difference in dental disease between the HIV-positive and HIV-negative groups. In our data, it was found that the prevalence of periodontitis in HIV-positive patients was 16.4% and in HIV-negative patients 19.2%.