Gender inequalities in the dental science: An analysis of high impact publications.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the participation of women in publications of dental journals with a high impact factor. METHODS: Articles published in 2016, 2011, and 2006 in 10 dental journals chosen for their highest impact factors in each dental fields were included in this research. Articles-related variables collected included the country of origin of each author, the type of study, and gender of the researchers. Gender was examined through PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, and respective affiliated institutions. Furthermore, a website designed to discover the gender of names was used when the previous alternatives were not conclusive. Forward stepwise Poisson regression models were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3365 studies were included in the first authorship analysis and 3398 in analysis related to last authorship. The prevalence of women as first authors was 37.2% (confidence interval (CI) 95% 34.5-37.5) and as last authors was 22.6% (CI 95% 21.3-23.9). Having a woman as the last author increased the presence of women in the first author position in scientific dental articles by 16% (prevalence ratio = 1.16, CI 95% [1.04-1.29]). The year of publication, journal, and region of the author were associated with an increase in the prevalence of women as last authors. From 2006 to 2016, the prevalence of women as last authors increased by 61%. Despite these trends, women were still underrepresented in science in the evaluated period. CONCLUSIONS: There are meaningful gender inequalities in publications of scientific dental papers. Encouraging women to lead research groups can reduce the inequities observed in the present study.

Failure of miniscrews installed in maxilla and mandible: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Falha de mini-implantes instalados em maxila e mandíbula: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the clinical failure rate of orthodontic miniscrews in maxilla and mandible. Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trials of patients in orthodontic treatment, which required miniscrews for orthodontic intervention reporting the failure rate of miniscrews in the maxilla and mandible were searched in Pubmed database. Two authors independently reviewed all identified titles and abstracts for eligibility. Comparison between failures in maxilla and mandible were estimated using pairwise meta-analysis to calculate the relative risk (RR) of failure and the 95% confidence intervals using a random-effect model. The reports of randomized trials were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Four studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 299 patients with a total of 628 miniscrews installed were included in the analysis. The analysis showed a 0.55 RR (95% CI 0.23­1.29) and I2 = 85%. All studies had an unclear risk of bias regarding to the two following items: allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel. All studies had a low risk of bias with regard to incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. The results did not demonstrate statistical difference between risk of failure of miniscrew between maxilla and mandible. Conclusion: The results of the meta-analysis showed that miniscrews installed in maxilla presents reduced risk of failure. A tendency of higher number of failures in mandible was also demonstrated. However, results should be interpreted with caution because of the very low quality of included studies and the differences among methodologies. (AU)

Objetivo: A presente revisão sistemática objetivou comparar a taxa de falha clínica de mini-implantes ortodônticos instalados em maxila e mandíbula. Materiais e Métodos: Ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados que reportaram a taxa de falha de mini-implantes instalados em maxila e mandíbula de pacientes necessitando tratamento ortodôntico foram pesquisados na base de dados do Pubmed. Dois autores revisaram independentemente os títulos e resumos identificados com base nos critérios de elegibilidade. Comparações entre as falhas na maxila e mandíbula foram estimadas utilizando meta-análise pareada para cálculo do risco relativo (RR) de falha e dos intervalos de confiança de 95%, usando um modelo de efeito aleatório. Os reportes dos estudos incluídos foram avaliados quanto ao risco de viés seguindo os critérios da Cochrane para ensaios clínicos randomizados. Resultados: Quatro estudos preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade. No total, 299 pacientes e 628 mini-implantes instalados foram incluídos na análise. A análise apresentou um RR 0,55 (IC 95% 0,23-1,29) e I2 = 85%. Todos os estudos apresentaram um risco claro de viés em relação aos dois itens seguintes: ocultação de alocação, cegamento dos participantes e profissionais. Todos os estudos apresentaram um baixo risco de viés no que diz respeito a dados de desfecho incompletos e reporte seletivo. Não foi demonstrada diferença estatisticamente significativa entre mini-implantes instalados em maxila e mandíbula. Conclusão: Os resultados da meta-análise demonstraram um menor risco de falhas em mini-implantes instalados na maxila e uma tendência para maior número de falhas na mandíbula. Contudo, os resultados devem ser interpretados com cautela, dadas a baixa qualidade dos estudos incluídos e as diferenças entre suas metodologias (AU)