ABSTRACT
Background: Dental implants in the recent past have become indispensable in restoring loss of space and support as well as aiding the aesthetics. Although in practice for a few years there is no consensus on the protocols for placement and usage of dental implants in growing jaws. Objective: The present study aims to evaluate evidence-based literature on single or multiple dental implant placements in children(up to 17 years) and to identify areas lacking and gaps in knowledge. The quality assessment tool,namely AMSTAR-2, will also aim to evaluate the quality of said research around paediatric dental implants. Design: The study was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e59bt/?view_only=ec8fb69455c240ecbfc7379734784bf7.For source selection, electronic searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus databases as well as Google Scholar for all English language systematic reviews and meta analysis on dental implants placed on children up to 17yrs of age by 2 reviewers, wherein the publications until December 2020 were included. A final dataset of 4 systematic reviews were incorporated and analysed using the AMSTAR-2 grading tool. Results: It was seen that only one study showed moderate overall confidence while one low overall confidence as per the AMSTAR-2. The other 2 systematic reviews were of critically low confidence levels. Hence, the existing systematic reviews on the subject are not of high quality. Most of the reviews have no consensus regarding use and placement of implants in growing patients. Conclusion: More research and stricter adherence to the quality assessment guidelines is recommended for all future systematic reviews regarding dental implant in children.
ABSTRACT
Background: The advent of technology in dentistry compels the safeguard of intellectual property to guarantee a steady flow of ideas. A guarantee preserves the idea/invention which is conductive to the subsequent financial gain or marketing of the said product for the patentee. The main objective of the present study was to illuminate the trends in the dental patents filed in India over the past decade and to analyze these in context with the recent developments in dental markets. Methodology: A total of 641 dental patent applications retrieved from the Indian Government Official Website between 2010 and 2020 were scanned for field of invention, type or status of application along with details regarding date of publication or filing of application, etc., The dataset was collaboratively analyzed using Panda's Library in Python software as analysis tool for data preparation and frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The results showed that Indian Patent Office (IPO) has granted 54 dental patents in the last decade. The maximum applications of the IPO processes are the patent co-operation treaty National Phase applications (53.3%), mostly in the bio-engineering field (36.8%). Chiefly, patents were filed by individuals and companies (n = 180) and average time for grant was 4.90 years and 5.34 years, respectively. Conclusion: The process of patent application in India although has become digitalized needs to be more comprehensible and time bound, with more awareness disseminated to entrepreneurs and dental students alike.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. Methodology. A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions. CONCLUSIONS: The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.
