Maxillofacial Surgery Journals Research Articles

Effect modifiers influencing the periodontal healing of the adjacent second molar following mandibular third molar removal

Studies were selected, using appropriate key words, from the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Medline (via Pubmed); Scopus/Elsevier; and Embase. A manual search was also conducted of five periodontology and oral and maxillofacial surgery journals. It was not clarified what proportion of studies included were derived from which source. Inclusion criteria included prospective studies and randomised controlled trials published in English, with a minimum 6-month follow-up reporting on parameters of periodontal healing distal to the mandibular second molar following removal of M3M in human subjects. These parameters included pocket probing depth (PPD) reduction and final depth (FD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) reduction and FD, alveolar bone defect (ABD) change and FD. Given prognostic indictors and interventions were investigated, the studies were screened using PICO and PECO (Population, Intervention, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome). Cohen's kappa statistic measured the level of agreement between 2 selecting authors (0.96 stage 1 screening, 1.00 stage 2 screening). Disagreements were resolved with a tie-breaker 3rd author. Ultimately, from 918 studies, 17 met the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were excluded on the basis of same patient pools, non-representative outcomes of interest, insufficient follow-up period, and unclear results. The 17 studies meeting the inclusion criteria underwent validity assessment and data extraction, including risk of bias analysis. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference and standard error for each outcome measure. If these were unavailable, a correlation coefficient was calculated. Meta-regression was used on different subgroups to determine factors affecting periodontal healing. For all analyses, statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05. Statistical variability in outcomes beyond the expected was estimated using I2 analyses, with a value >50% indicating significant heterogeneity. The periodontal parameters investigated yielded the following results after meta-analysis: overall PPD reduction of 1.06 mm at 6 months and 1.67 mm at 12 months; final PPD of 3.81 mm at 6 months; CAL change of 0.69 mm at 6 months; final CAL of 4.28 mm at 6 months and 4.37 mm at 12 months; ABD reduction of 2.62 mm at 6 months; ABD of 3.2 mm at 6 months. The authors found no statistically significant effect on periodontal healing from the following confounding factors: age; M3M angulation (specifically, mesioangular impaction); optimisation of periodontal health prior to surgery; scaling and root planing of the distal second molar at the time of surgery; post-operative antibiotics or chlorhexidine prophylaxis. There were statisticallysignificant correlations between baseline PPD and final PPD. There was improved PPD reduction at 6 months with a three-sided flap compared to others, and regenerative materials and bone grafts improved all periodontal parameters. Although M3M removal results in modest improvement in periodontal health distally of the second mandibular molar, periodontal defects remain onwards of 6 months. There is limited evidence suggesting a three-sided flap is more beneficial than an envelope flap in PPD reduction at 6 months. Regenerative materials and bone grafts result in significant improvements across all periodontal health parameters. The most important predictive factor in final PPD of the distal second mandibular molar is baseline PPD.

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Journals’ Presence on Social Media: An Adaptation to Enhance Publication Readership and Interdisciplinary Collaboration?

As social media continues to grow at a substantial rate, patients, physicians, and surgeons are more connected than ever. Twitter currently estimates 1 in every 5 Americans are using their platform. Instagram reports a high volume of active users as well, and along with Twitter, may be useful in facilitating digital conversations in medicine.1 Medical journals may initiate these conversations by sharing medical information and encouraging collaboration between physicians on social media. Over the last few years, other medical journals have developed their social media presence,2 but what about oral and maxillofacial surgery journals?

A 21-year analysis of the publication patterns and level of scientific evidence in three major oral and maxillofacial surgery journals

High-quality research in surgical sciences is constrained by a number of barriers including funding, blinding, adjusting for surgical experience, and inability to recruit sufficient numbers. As a result, surgeons have been reported to accept lower levels of scientific evidence to validate procedures. Our study analysed the quantity and quality of publications in three journals in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery over a 21-year period. A retrospective analysis of all issues published between 1998 and 2018 in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery was conducted. A total of 14,324 articles were analysed and grouped according to their National Health and Medical Research Council of evidence. The analysis revealed that there has been a promising increase in both the quantity and quality of publications with statistically significant increases in each of the variables analysed. We found a statistically significant increase in the number of articles published in the most recent decade compared with the previous decade across the three journals. The level of evidence also increased during the study period, with greater numbers of level I and II studies being published in more recent years. These findings were found to be statistically significant (P˂0.001).

Can an Article Processing Charge Reach the Number of Impact Factor 3.825?

Dental implants and their role continue increasing not only in oral surgery/periodontics but also in fibula jaw surgery.2 So, the critically important dental implants sections in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals are growing similar to publications focused clearly on implants. One of them is Clinical Oral Implants Research (COIR), which is a ‘hybrid’ journal (contains both, toll and open access articles)3 and official publication of the European Association for Osseointegration published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.4 Being launched in December 1990 (Niklaus P. Lang is a founding editor) as quarterly journal, it continues developing nearly full last 30 years. From 1997 it increased frequency to 6 issues per year and from 2008 started circulate 12 issues per year.5, 6 SCImago Journal &amp; Country Rank put COIR at first place among 47 journals in category “Oral Surgery.”7 According to ISI Journal Citation Reports Ranking in 2018 the journal holds fifth position among 90 publications in category “Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine” and fourteenth place among 80 journals in category “Engineering, Biomedical.”4A journal`s 2018 impact factor (IF) is at a very prestigious mark and reached 3.825.4 And it`s very interesting that article processing charge (APC) in August 2019 is also very close to the number of journal`s IF, being at level of USD 3,800 (Ta b l e).8 So, in that case, such a high APC can be named as ‘price of prestige.’ There is ongoing debate among publishers about the level of APC.9, 10 And we know that some journals have APC even at the level of USD 6,000, excluding tax.11 But, can the APC can be as high as COIR has? Our opinion is yes and the example of COIR proved that. As high APC will give a publisher a wide range of possibilities: to appoint the honorary salaries for editors/reviewers, to spent more income for advertising, growing projects (journal club, podcasts, etc.) inside the journal, organizing awards with stipends for young generations of authors, thus moving the specialties forward.

Quality assessment of instructions for authors in dental, oral and maxillofacial journals

Objective: to develop and test inter-observer reproducibility of instructions for authors quality rating (IAQR) tool measuring the quality of instructions for authors at journal level for a possible improvement of editorial guidelines.Material and methods: instructions for authors of 75 dental and maxillofacial surgery journals were assessed by two independent observers using assessment tool inspired from AGREE with 16 questions and 1 to 4 points scale per answer. Two observers evaluated the instructions of authors independently and blind to impact factor of a given journal. Scores obtained from our tool were compared with “journal impact factor 2013”. Results: IAQR presented with an excellent interobserver reproducibility (κ= 0.81) despite a difference in data distribution between observers. There existed a weak positive correlation between IAQR and “journal impact factor 2013”. Conclusions: The IAQR is a reproducible quality assessment tool at the journal level. The IAQR assess the quality of instruction for authors and it is a goodstarting point for possible improvements of the instructions for authors, especially when it comes to their completeness. Nemesis relevance: 28% of dental and maxillofacial journals might revise their instructions for authors to provide more up-to-date version.

Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view

ObjectiveTo evaluate the accessibility to editorial information in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery journals. Material and methodsA cross-sectional study using the WOS–Web of Science database in three categories: “Surgery,” “Otorhinolaryngology,” and “Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine” was designed. Journals were filtered by title and classified under three headings: OMFS specialty; OMFS subspecialty and related sciences; and multidisciplinary journals. Specialty scope (OMFS vs. other); impact factor; path for the manuscript; blinding policy; accessibility to reviewers' criteria; and percentage of acceptance. ResultsOnly 46 of 330 journals met the inclusion criteria. All OMFS journals provided comprehensive information about the review process, compared to 5 of 27 (18.5%) of Oral Surgery and related sciences periodicals. Most specialty journals do not inform about the blind review mode used (20 of 33; 60.6%). Generally, information about the reviewers' assessment criteria is scarce, but is available from all OMFS journals, which also state the percentage of manuscript acceptance (100% vs. 14.8%). ConclusionsOMFS JCR journals provide adequate information about their editorial process in terms of path for the manuscript, accessibility to reviewers' criteria, and percentage of acceptance. Additional efforts are needed to increase accessibility to information about blinding policy and average time from submission to acceptance.

Gender trends in authorship in oral and maxillofacial surgery literature: A 30-year analysis

The aim of the present study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the gender distribution of first and senior authorships in important oral and maxillofacial journals over the 30-year period from 1980 to 2010.Articles published in three representative oral and maxillofacial surgery journals were selected. The years 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 were chosen as representative points in time for article selection. Original research, case reports, technical notes, and reviews were included in the analysis. Case reports and technical notes were pooled in one group.For each article, the gender of the first author as well as that of the senior author was determined, based on the inspection of their first name. The type of article was determined and the country of origin of the article was documented.A total 1412 articles were subjected to the data analysis. A significant increase in female authorship in oral and maxillofacial surgery could be identified over the chosen 30-year period. However, the number of publications by male authors was still significantly higher at all points of time, exceeding those of female authors by at least 3.8 fold in 2010.As there is a trend towards feminization of medicine and dentistry, the results of the present study may serve as the basis for further analysis of the current situation, and the identification of necessary actions to accelerate the closure of the gender gap in publishing in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view

Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view

Who publishes in leading oral and maxillofacial surgery journals?

Introduction: There is a growing concern about the scientific production in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) field, making it essential to have bibliometric assessments to estimate current status and trends.

Dual-degree oral and maxillofacial surgery: evidence-based view of Chilean candidates

Dual-degree oral and maxillofacial surgery: evidence-based view of Chilean candidates

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: An observation on published controlled trials

Publication bias (PB) diminishes the full distribution of research, distorts and discredits the scientific record, and thus compromises evidence-based practice. The objective of this study was to analyse published controlled trials with regard to PB in leading oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) journals. All controlled trials published in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2008 were analysed for a primary outcome, country of authors, sample size, gender of the first author, funding source and location of the study. Of 952 published articles, 53 controlled trials (5.7%) were identified. The OMS journals preferentially published controlled trials with a positive outcome (77.4%) and from high-income countries (73.6%). Single-centred trials (86.8%) with low sample size (n<100; 69.8%) were published more frequently. The majority of the first authors were male (75.5%). Funding source disclosure was missing in most studies (73.6%) [corrected]. Our results suggest the possible existence of PB in the OMS literature. Hence, it should be borne in mind that the published articles may not be representative of all scientific works, especially when systematic reviews and meta-analyses are conducted or read. In the meantime, journals should establish measures to eliminate PB to uphold scientific integrity. However, this study was an observation based on the published articles. An analysis of all submitted manuscripts would provide more accurate estimates of PB. Ethical considerations on PB are also discussed.