Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews

Objectives: The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to investigate methodological quality and outcome of current systematic reviews (SRs) reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion.

Materials and methods: Computerized and manual searches were performed in Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Conference abstracts and Grey literature. No restrictions were set on language or date of publication. The search covered the starting date of the relevant databases until 30 April 2015. MeSH terms and free-text terms included ‘malocclusion’, ‘Angle class III’, ‘orthodontic appliances’, ‘functional’, facemask, review and meta-analysis. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the SRs and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews).

Results: A total of 222 studies were retrieved and after removal of duplicates, irrelevant studies, literature reviews and surgical approach treatments, 14 SRs and/or meta-analyses were included for qualitative synthesis. Mean AMSTAR score was 7.7/11 with a range of 3–10. There was evidence to demonstrate that face mask therapy can move the maxilla forward whilst causing a backward rotation of the mandible and increased facial height. There was also some evidence of mandibular growth retardation with chin cup therapy.

Conclusions: Orthopaedic appliances can improve a class III malocclusion in growing patients over the short-term; however, each appliance has a characteristic effect on the underlying skeletal pattern.     

Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Systematic reviews (SRs) are published with an increasing rate in many fields of biomedical literature, including orthodontics. Although SRs should consolidate the evidence-based characteristics of contemporary orthodontic practice, doubts on the validity of their conclusions have been frequently expressed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and quality characteristics of orthodontic SRs as well as to assess their quality of reporting during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for SRs (without any meta-analytical data synthesis) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to the start of 2010. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 110 SRs were included in this evaluation. About half of the SRs (46.4%) were published in orthodontic journals, while few (5.5%) were updates of previously published reviews. Using the AMSTAR tool, thirty (27.3%) of the SRs were found to be of low quality, 63 (57.3%) of medium quality, and 17 (15.5%) of high quality. No significant trend for quality improvement was observed during the last years. The overall quality of orthodontic SRs may be considered as medium. Although the number of orthodontic SRs has increased over the last decade, their quality characteristics can be characterized as moderate.     

Periodontal disease and quality of life: Umbrella review of systematic reviews

This umbrella review appraised existing systematic reviews and meta‐analysis to establish the impact of periodontal disease and therapy on general and oral health‐related quality of life. A systematic electronic literature search was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA guideline up to January 2020 using PubMed, LIVIVO, EMBASE and OpenGrey (PROSPERO CRD 42020163831). Hand searching was performed through the reference lists of periodontal textbooks and related journals. All English language‐based systematic reviews and meta‐analysis that assessed the impact of periodontal disease and treatment interventions on general and oral health‐related quality of life were included. Overall, eight articles met the inclusion criteria and their methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 criteria. Two systematic reviews showed a significant impact of oral conditions on general health‐related quality of life, although the specific impact of periodontal disease remains inconclusive. Three systematic reviews established a negative impact of periodontal disease on oral health‐related quality of life. Another three systematic reviews concluded that periodontal treatment can improve oral health‐related quality of life. Oral conditions, like periodontal disease, can impact the general health‐related quality of life. Periodontal disease is negatively correlated with oral health‐related quality of life, although treatment interventions can improve self‐reported quality of life. In view of the heterogeneity of generic instruments currently utilized to assess the self‐reported quality of life of periodontal patients, the development of a general and oral health‐related quality of life instrument specific for periodontal disease is strongly recommended.     

Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health

Objectives

This study aimed to conduct a methodological assessment of paper-based systematic reviews (SR) published in oral health using a validated checklist. A secondary objective was to explore temporal trends on methodological quality.

Material and methods

Two electronic databases (OVID Medline and OVID EMBASE) were searched for paper-based SR of interventions published in oral health from inception to October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of paper-based SR were also conducted. Methodological quality of included paper-based SR was assessed using an 11-item questionnaire, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Methodological quality was summarized using the median and inter-quartile range (IQR) of the AMSTAR score over different categories and time periods.

Results

A total of 643 paper-based SR were included. The overall median AMSTAR score was 4 (IQR 2–6). The highest median score (5) was found in the pain dentistry and periodontology fields, while the lowest median score (3) was found in implant dentistry, restorative dentistry, oral medicine, and prosthodontics. The number of paper-based SR per year and the median AMSTAR score increased over time (median score in 1990s was 2 (IQR 2–3), 2000s was 4 (IQR 2–5), and 2010 onwards was 5 (IQR 3–6)).

Conclusion

Although the methodological quality of paper-based SR published in oral health has improved in the last few years, there is still scope for improving quality in most evaluated dental specialties.

Clinical relevance

Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of dental SR highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses that can be targeted in future publications to encourage better quality review methodology.

     

Evidence-based dentistry and translational research

Rationale for Clinical Decision Making Evidence-based dentistry is an emerging approach to the practice of oral biology and medicine that seeks to integrate the best available research evidence into clinical practice for the maximum benefit of each individual patient. It is a new philosophy, some say, a novel mindset, an innovative system that establishes a bridge between the domains of clinical evidence and of research evidence. It favors the preventive model of intervention aimed at ensuring wellness and quality of life in our patients over the traditional style of “drill, fill, and repair.”J Evid Base Dent Pract 2003;3:5-7