RESUMO

The aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal-orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR-2 tool (the acronym is derived from 'a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews') to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR-2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta-analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched.

Assuntos

RESUMO

This systematic review provides an update on the effect of nanofibers as reinforcement on resin-based dental materials. A bibliographic search was conducted in MEDLINEPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, BVS (LILACS, BBO e IBECS), Cochrane, LIVIVO, and gray literature (BDTD) to identify relevant articles up to May 2021. In vitro studies that evaluated and compared the mechanical properties of nanofibers resin-based composite materials, were eligible. No publication year or language restriction was applied, and methodological quality was assessed using two methods. In a total of 6100 potentially eligible studies, 81 were selected for full-text analysis and 35 were included for qualitative analysis. Of the 35 included studies, a total of 29 studies evaluated the flexural strength (FS) of the materials. These groups were distinguished according to the resin-based materials tested and nanofiber types. Most of the studies evaluated materials composed of glass fibers and demonstrated higher values of FS when compared to resin-based materials without nanofibers. The incorporation of nanofibers into resin-based dental materials improved the mechanical properties compared to resin-based materials without nanofibers, suggesting better performance of these materials in high-stressbearing application areas. Further clinical studies are required to confirm the efficacy of resin-based materials with nanofibers.

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A). METHODS: Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores. RESULTS: Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess methods, quality and outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs) conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of root coverage (RC) procedures in the treatment of recession-type defects (RTD). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to and including April 2010 to identify SRs investigating the effectiveness/efficacy of surgical interventions for the treatment of patients with RTD. Searching was conducted independently by two reviewers, and data extraction was based on the methodological criteria applied and on the effects of interventions reported by each SR. The checklist proposed by Glenny and colleagues, the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire and the "Assessment of Multiple systematic Reviews", instrument were used to assess the quality of SRs. Additionally, the methodological criteria applied by included reviews were compared with those proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Search strategy identified 716 potentially eligible articles, of which 12 papers regarding 10 SRs were included in the study. Results from different SRs showed that subepithelial connective tissue grafts associated or not to coronally advanced flaps can be used to reduce recession depth and improve the width of keratinized tissue. All quality assessment tools showed that most of the SRs were of good methodological quality, but they also highlighted key points that could be improved in future reviews. Only two SRs followed in full the guidelines proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: All SRs agree that RC may be anticipated by different surgical procedures. However, differences in the methodological quality between reviews were quite evident, and thus making a clear indication that there is a need of standardization of the methods that will be applied by future SRs. As a result, a standardized checklist for reporting SRs was proposed by the authors.

Assuntos