Translating the determinant aspects on the study design in the dental implant field.

Objective: In this article, we analyzed the important categories capable of interfering with the determinants of scientific advancement in the type of study, considering seven leading journals over a 20-year. Methodology: A bibliometric review was performed at the website of well-established implant dentistry journals in five-time points defined to represent a 20-year period of observation. The measures associated with the type of study design were: the country of origin of the article, country income, continent of the corresponding author, inter-institutional collaboration, interdisciplinary collaboration, type of funding, and topic of research. Logistic regression was used in the multiple models to identify the exploratory factors associated with the type of study. Results: From a total of 1,944 articles, 50.6% comprised clinical studies. High-income countries and continents stood out for developing more clinical research than others. Since research funders request more collaborative research, overall clinical studies depended upon more inter-institutional collaboration than the others. Most clinical studies were partly supported by research institutes or universities and by industry. About the research topic, the majority of the clinical and animal studies disclosed surgical procedures. Conclusions: High-income countries and continents are more likely to develop clinical studies in the surgical procedures field. The highest collaborations in terms of the number of institutions and funding sources are more prevalent in clinical research designs. Indeed, most in vivo studies in dental implant fields are performed to evaluate new materials or even new surgical procedures.

Mapping the trends and impact of research collaboration between countries in oral implantology publications: A bibliometric analysis from 1999 to 2019.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Scientific collaboration provides a suitable strategy for enhancing the exchange of knowledge and technological development. However, the impact of collaboration in oral implantology research between countries and how it has been influenced by the income status of the country has not been previously evaluated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to evaluate how collaboration between countries affected oral implant publications and whether patterns of collaboration differ depending on the country's income. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Articles were retrieved from 7 well-established journals whose scope included oral implantology at 5 time points (1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019). Data were extracted, and descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 1944 articles were included; of which, 27.5% presented collaboration between countries. In 2009, 2014, and 2019, collaboration between countries was more likely to occur than at previous time points (P≤.005). Corresponding authors with a higher h-index (P<.05) and authors from Europe and North America (P<.001) were more likely to establish international connections. The possibility of collaboration between countries was higher for animal studies (P<.001) and for articles published by Clinical Oral Implants Research (P=.026). Collaborations between high-income and upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries were more likely to happen in 2014 and 2019 (P<.05), as well as when the number of authors was higher (P=.015), compared with collaboration between high-income countries. With regard to the continent, European articles were less likely to have collaborations with upper-middle- or lower-middle-income countries (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that some parameters related to the study, authors, countries, and journals were statistically associated with the presence of collaboration between countries. However, the bibliometric parameters showed different trends when countries of different incomes established collaboration.

Association between industry support and the reporting of study outcomes in randomized clinical trials of dental implant research from the past 20 years.

BACKGROUND: Industry support is a significant funding source in implant dentistry research, not only to provide regulatory processes, but also to validate and promote products through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, industry funding should not affect scientific outcomes. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an association between industry support for RCTs in implant dentistry and a greater chance of the reporting of positive outcomes, and whether there are other funding tendencies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials from five implant dentistry journals were reviewed. Data were extracted, and descriptive and inferential statistical analyses (α = 0.05), including bivariate and multivariable logistic regression, and Spearman's correlation were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven RCTs were included. Industry-funded and -unfunded studies presented similar outcomes, in terms of positive and negative results (p ≥ 0.05). North American and European countries received more industry funding, as did high-income countries, which showed well-established collaboration with each other. Clinical Oral Implants Research and Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research published 83.6% of industry-funded articles. Industry-funded studies from middle-income countries established more international collaborations with high-income countries than did unfunded studies. Citation numbers were similar for funded and unfunded studies. The chance of RCTs being industry-funded was higher for high-income (odds ratio [OR] = 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-9.32; p = 0.05) and North American articles (OR = 3.40; 95% CI, 1.37-8.42; p = 0.008) than in lower-middle-income and other continents, respectively. Higher industry funding was associated with specific topics such as "surgical procedures," "prosthodontics topics," and "implant macrodesign" (OR = 4.7; 95% CI, 1.45-15.20; p = 0.010) and with the increase in numbers of institutions (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.16-2.0; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests no association between industry funding and greater chances of the reporting of positive outcomes in implant dentistry RCTs. A strong association was identified in industry trends concerning geographic origins, higher numbers of institutions, and specific research topics.

Prevalence and predictive factors of dentin hypersensitivity in Brazilian adolescents.

AIM: To measure the prevalence of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in adolescents. METHODS: The diagnosis was based on self-report and was confirmed by tactile and evaporative tests. The association between DH and predictor factors was determined using a multivariate model. The sample consisted of 384 adolescents. RESULTS: The prevalence was 19.0%. DH prevalence to tactile stimulus was higher in those participants whose toothbrush movement was vertical/horizontal (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.47-0.60, p < 0.001), in the presence of dental biofilm (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.94-3.09, p < 0.001), of non-carious cervical lesion (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.40-3.18, p < 0.001), of gingival recession (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.44-1.86, p < 0.001) and gyroversion (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.40-1.82; p < 0.001). When DH was diagnosed by evaporative stimulus, there was an association with brush movement in a vertical/horizontal direction (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.66-0.82, p < 0.001), with the use of mouthwash solutions (OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 2.16-3.25, p < 0.001), in the presence of non-carious cervical lesion (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.57-1.96, p < 0.001), of gyroversion (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.51-1.90, p < 0.001) and gingival recession (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.59-1.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DH in the sample was worrying, since almost 1 in 5 adolescents had DH. Individuals with DH were more likely to report traumatic dental brushing, and presence of dental biofilm, non-carious cervical lesion, gingival recession and gyroversion in the affected teeth.