Nonpublication and Selective Outcome Reporting of Oral Health Trials.

Less than one-quarter of oral health trials are registered in a public registry. However, no study has assessed the extent of study publication and selective outcome reporting bias in the field of oral health. We identified oral health trials registered between 2006 and 2016 in ClinicalTrials.gov. We assessed whether results of early discontinued trials, trials having an unknown status, and completed trials had been published and, among published trials, whether outcomes differed between the registered record and the corresponding publication. We included 1,399 trials, of which 81 (5.8%) were discontinued, 247 (17.7%) had an unknown status, and 1,071 (76.6%) were completed. The registration was prospective for 719 (51.9%) trials. Over half the registered trials were unpublished (n = 793, 56.7%). To explore the association between trials publication and characteristics of trials, we performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Trials conducted in the United States (P = 0.003) or Brazil (P < 0.001) were associated with increased odds of publication, whereas trials registered prospectively (P = 0.001) and industry-sponsored trials (P = 0.02) were associated with decreased odds. Among the 479 published trials with completed status, the primary outcomes of 215 (44.9%) articles differed from that registered. Major discrepancies consisted of the introduction of a new primary outcome in the published article (196 [91.2%]) and the transformation of a registered secondary outcome into a primary outcome (112 [52.1%]). In the remaining 264 (55.1%) trials, primary outcomes did not differ from that registered, but 141 (53.4%) had been registered retrospectively. Our study highlights the high rate of nonpublication and selective outcome reporting in the field of oral health. These results could alert sponsors, funders, authors of systematic reviews, and the oral health research community at large to combat the nondisclosure of trial results.

Full-mouth Rehabilitation of Hypocalcified-type Amelogenesis Imperfecta With Chairside Computer-aided Design and Computer-aided Manufacturing: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: This case report describes the complete full-mouth treatment of hypocalcified amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) by chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). CASE SUMMARY: After several years of interrupted dental care, a 17-year-old female patient presented with pain and also esthetic and functional discomfort. With loss of enamel and dyschromia affecting all teeth, the diagnosis was hypocalcified AI. Affected tissues were eliminated, gingivectomy with laser was performed, an indented jig was used to record the centric relationship during optical impressions, and 28 full ceramic crowns were created by chairside CAD/CAM in four sessions. The patient reported rapid pain relief and an overall improvement of well-being. CONCLUSION: AI sequelae can be treated promptly and conservatively with chairside CAD/CAM, obtaining esthetic and functional results.

Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations--the digital workflow from a mechanical engineering viewpoint.

As digital technology infiltrates every area of daily life, including the field of medicine, so it is increasingly being introduced into dental practice. Apart from chairside practice, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) solutions are available for creating inlays, crowns, fixed partial dentures (FPDs), implant abutments, and other dental prostheses. CAD/CAM dental solutions can be considered a chain of digital devices and software for the almost automatic design and creation of dental restorations. However, dentists who want to use the technology often do not have the time or knowledge to understand it. A basic knowledge of the CAD/CAM digital workflow for dental restorations can help dentists to grasp the technology and purchase a CAM/CAM system that meets the needs of their office. This article provides a computer-science and mechanical-engineering approach to the CAD/CAM digital workflow to help dentists understand the technology.

Clinical trial registration in oral health journals.

Prospective registration of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represents the best solution to reporting bias. The extent to which oral health journals have endorsed and complied with RCT registration is unknown. We identified journals publishing RCTs in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine in the Journal Citation Reports. We classified journals into 3 groups: journals requiring or recommending trial registration, journals referring indirectly to registration, and journals providing no reference to registration. For the 5 journals with the highest 2012 impact factors in each group, we assessed whether RCTs with results published in 2013 had been registered. Of 78 journals examined, 32 (41%) required or recommended trial registration, 19 (24%) referred indirectly to registration, and 27 (35%) provided no reference to registration. We identified 317 RCTs with results published in the 15 selected journals in 2013. Overall, 73 (23%) were registered in a trial registry. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively and 32% did not report trial registration in the published article. The proportion of trials registered was not significantly associated with editorial policies: 29% with results in journals that required or recommended registration, 15% in those that referred indirectly to registration, and 21% in those providing no reference to registration (P = 0.05). Less than one-quarter of RCTs with results published in a sample of oral health journals were registered with a public registry. Improvements are needed with respect to how journals inform and require their authors to register their trials.