Evidence-Based Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

The past forty-three years of dental implantology literature. A global mapping and scientometric analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this research is to make a scientometric analysis of the dental implantology literature and to present the results in a more understandable way to the reader by visualizing them with maps.

METHODS

The dental implantology literature was accessed through the Web of Science database. Scientometric data was obtained with Citespace 6.1 software, co-citation, clustering analysis, citation burst, and mapping analyzes were performed. Scimago Graphica software was used for additional visualizations.

RESULTS

A total of 35,704 articles were included in the analysis. There were 88,616 authors, 72,333 institutes, 142 countries/regions, and 3,265 journals contributing to the dental implantology literature. The United States was first with 7,334 publications and 225,868 citations. The literature between 1980 and 2023 was divided into 19 different clusters, and the literature between 2000 and 2023 was divided into 16 different clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Key themes in the field include the use of autogenous bone, advancements in implant surface technology, and the use of platform switching and intraoral scanners. Emerging topics of interest include esthetic considerations in the treatment of the anterior region, stress distribution, the use of zirconia, and the impact of implant treatment on oral health-related quality of life. With similar scientometric analysis studies to be done in the future, the progress of the literature can be followed on the basis of evidence.

Arthrocentesis versus occlusal coverage splints in the management of disc displacement without reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) can cause pain and limitations in mouth opening, with a significant impact on function. The optimal management strategy for DDwoR is unclear. Treatments include conservative management such as mandibular manipulation, occlusal splints, and patient education/self-management, as well as arthrocentesis, which is a minimally invasive procedure. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to ascertain whether there is a role for arthrocentesis in the management of DDwoR. Studies analysing the outcomes pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO) in patients with DDwoR treated by arthrocentesis or occlusal coverage devices were eligible for inclusion. Following a database search, six studies with a total of 343 participants were found to be eligible for analysis (three prospective observational studies, one retrospective observational study, one non-randomized single-blind clinical trial, and one unblinded randomized clinical trial). When compared to occlusal coverage splints, arthrocentesis demonstrated a slight improvement in pain, although this was statistically non-significant (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to 0.05, P = 0.07; I2 = 81%), and a significant improvement in MMO (SMD 0.79 mm, 95% CI 0.24-1.35 mm, P = 0.005; I2 = 79%). However, due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and the high risk of bias, along with the paucity of double-blind randomized controlled clinical trials, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn for this clinical question.

Use of antibiotics in traumatic mandibular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The treatment of traumatic mandibular fractures constitutes a significant part of the oral and maxillofacial trauma service's workload. There are potential variations in how they are managed. Patients are often admitted and given intravenous antibiotics prior to their definitive treatment. The evidence behind this is inconclusive. We performed a systematic review as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance/ PROSPERO Registered (CRD:42020201398) on the use of antibiotics in the management of mandibular fractures. We identified studies using a search algorithm within the OVID Gateway (including MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Collaborative). Studies analysing the possible impact of prophylactic antibiotics on traumatic mandibular fractures were eligible. The primary outcome was surgical site infection requiring any treatment beyond the normal postoperative protocol. Secondary outcomes included any complication requiring further intervention. From the 16 studies identified (3,285 patients), seven were randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and nine were retrospective observational studies. We have identified significant between-study variation in choice of antibiotic regimen (timing, dosage, duration) and in reporting both primary and secondary outcomes. There was significant between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.02, I² = 69%) and none of the assessed interventions was found to be superior. The evidence behind the use of prophylactic antibiotics in mandibular fractures is weak. A properly designed and powered RCT is needed, in order to standardise practice for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems.

Levels of evidence and journal impact factor in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a 15-year follow-up

This study was performed to assess changes over time in the quality of research in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) by examining the level of evidence of published articles. A secondary aim was to determine the relationship of the journal impact factor to these levels of evidence. The four major OMS journals with an impact factor were assessed. Articles published in 2017 and 2018 were categorized based on their level of evidence, and their correlation with the 2019 journal impact factor was investigated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rho). The total number of published articles increased by a factor of 2.4 over a 15-year period, from 932 in 2002-2003 to 2253 in 2017-2018. The percentage of articles increased by 1.0% for level I evidence, 3.4% for level II, 8.2% for level III, and 4.1% for level IV. Non-evidence articles reduced by 16.7%. All journals showed an increase in impact factor, and a significant correlation was noted between the proportion of published higher-level evidence articles and the impact factor over time (rho=0.811, P=0.001). It is concluded that OMS journals currently display a higher proportion of good quality articles leading to a better impact factor than 15 years ago.

Following the trend in maxillofacial surgery literature

Evidence-based medicine relies on the integration of high-quality research with clinical expertise and patient values. The hierarchy of evidence allows the clinician to assign value to research based on the methodological quality of the study design and its applicability to the clinical question. Improvements in the quality of research in oral and maxillofacial surgery aim to strengthen evidence-based medicine and patient care. Analysis of the trends in maxillofacial surgery publications can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current body of research, and direct researchers to areas that require improvement. The aim of this study was to review the proportion of the types of articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 2010 and December 2019. These data were compared with a previously published review that summarised the proportion published in 2000 - 2009. The topics chosen for meta-analysis and the number of qualitative studies were also summarised. In total, 4931 articles were reviewed over the 10-year period. Compared with the previous 10 years, there was an increase in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses, and a reduction in case series and case reports. Implantology and dentoalveolar surgery were the most common topics chosen for meta-analysis. Overall, the trend in the maxillofacial literature is towards a higher quality body of research.

The Quality of the Evidence in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: Are We Making Progress?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the level of evidence in the craniomaxillofacial trauma literature. The secondary purpose is to determine if improvement in the quality of evidence has been made over the past 2 decades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed clinical articles published in select craniomaxillofacial surgery journals. Patient-focused articles were selected. The year of publication (1999, 2009, 2019) was the primary predictor variable. Secondary predictor variables included study funding status, anatomical facial region (eg maxilla, mandible, and so on), specific journal, and journal impact factor. The level of evidence was determined using the Center of Evidence-Based Medicine criteria, which served as the outcome variable. The statistical analysis included descriptive, bivariate, and regression analysis.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 469 craniomaxillofacial trauma articles, with 13.2% being published in 1999, 44.1% in 2009, and 42.6% in 2019. The majority of the studies (77.5%) were published in 4 journals. The impact factor varied among the journals with a significant improvement in the mean impact factor from (0.89 ± 0.29) in 1999 to (1.4 ± 0.47) in 2009 and a slight decline in 2019 (1.26 ± 0.71). Mandibular fractures (31.6%) and orbital trauma (26%) were the most investigated topics. Level 4 studies accounted for 67.4% of the sample, with level 3 evidence of 4.7%, level 2 of 22.6%, and level 1 of 5.3% of the included studies. Significant progress in the level of evidence has been made from 1999 but not since that time (P = .002). It is unclear why this may be but sheds light on the need for further development of high quality studies. Finally, a higher quality of evidence is associated with journal impact factor (odds ratio  = 1.9; P < .01) and funded research (odds ratio = 4.69; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

While there has been some improvement in the level of evidence in the craniomaxillofacial trauma literature over the past 2 decades, the current quality remains low, and further progress is needed to support the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Perfil da produção científica da apneia obstrutiva do sono na interface da fonoaudiologia

RESUMO Este estudo teve por objetivo averiguar a produção científica da Fonoaudiologia na interface com Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono, considerando fator de impacto, nível de evidência e área da Fonoaudiologia correspondente. Foi realizada uma busca na literatura nas bases de dados Lilacs, PubMed e Scopus, por meio do cruzamento das palavras-chave e termos livres específicos da Fonoaudiologia com "Apneia do Sono Tipo Obstrutiva". Para que o artigo fosse incluído no presente estudo, necessitava abordar como eixo principal da atuação fonoaudiológica nos pacientes com a Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono. Realizou-se uma consulta ao WebQualis da CAPES, investigando periódicos específicos da Fonoaudiologia da área 21 e seu respectivo Qualis. Os artigos selecionados foram analisados quanto ao fator de impacto, nível de evidência e área da Fonoaudiologia correspondente. Foram localizados 983 artigos, sendo selecionados 39, originados principalmente da base Scopus. O Qualis prevalente foi o B1, fator de impacto com média de 3.49, maior volume de publicações a partir do ano de 2006, nível de evidência 5 e área de atuação fonoaudiológica na maioria foi a Motricidade Orofacial. Foi realizada a análise da produção científica da Fonoaudiologia na interface com Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono, verificando-se que a Motricidade Orofacial e o nível de evidência 5 predominaram neste âmbito.

Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research

INTRODUCTION

Open access (OA) publication has become an increasingly common route for dissemination of scientific research findings. However, it remains a contentious issue with continued debate as to its impact on the peer-review process and a potential change in the quality of subsequent evidence published. There is little research that looks into OA in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

METHODS

We investigated the OA policy in the 30 relevant journals listed in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge journal citation report, comparing bibliometric data and quality of evidence produced in journals offering OA and those with subscription-only policies.

RESULTS

3474 articles were graded for evidence level and the results correlated to journal OA status. 76.7 % of journals offered authors OA services. There was no difference between impact factor, self-citation rate, total citations or quality of evidence between OA and subscription journals.

DISCUSSION

These findings should send clear messages to both clinicians and researchers and should re- assure readers that scientific findings that are disseminated in open access form do not differ in quality to those in subscription-only format. It should reinforce that open access formats are a credible way to display research findings in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Interferência dos bicos ortodônticos e convencionais no sistema estomatognático: revisão sistemática

RESUMO Objetivo: Verificar se o tipo de bico, ortodôntico ou convencional, de chupeta e mamadeira, tem alguma influência sobre as alterações encontradas no sistema estomatognático causadas pela manutenção do hábito de sucção. Estratégia de pesquisa: Por meio de uma revisão de literatura sistemática com metanálise, realizada a partir das bases de dados Lilacs, Medline e Embase e com a ferramenta de busca Google Acadêmico™, com os seguintes descritores em português e inglês: “Má oclusão” + “Chupetas”; “Má oclusão” + “Alimentação Artificial”; “Má oclusão” + “Mamadeira”, além das palavras “Bico Ortodôntico” + “Bico Convencional”. Critérios de seleção: Foram incluídos estudos que apresentassem em seus métodos a comparação de grupos que utilizaram chupeta e/ou mamadeira com bico convencional com grupos que utilizaram o bico ortodôntico, sem delimitação temporal. Análise dos dados: A análise do artigo na íntegra foi realizada de modo sistemático, com as seguintes categorias tabelando os resultados pertinentes: objetivo, método - casuística e avaliação, resultados e conclusão. Resultados: Foram encontrados 1.041 trabalhos, período de 1969 a 2013, desses foram excluídos 848 trabalhos, devido aos critérios de exclusão, e outros 174 que eram repetições. Foram lidos na íntegra 19 trabalhos, dos quais quatro artigos atenderam aos critérios de inclusão propostos, e três trabalhos foram incluídos na metanálise. Tais resultados expressaram que não há diferenças significantes entre os bicos ortodôntico e convencional quanto às implicações no sistema estomatognático. Conclusão: Não há possibilidade de concluir a existência de diferenças quanto às consequências no sistema estomatognático ocasionadas por bicos convencionais e ortodônticos de chupetas/mamadeiras.

The First AO Classification System for Fractures of the Craniomaxillofacial Skeleton: Rationale, Methodological Background, Developmental Process, and Objectives

Validated trauma classification systems are the sole means to provide the basis for reliable documentation and evaluation of patient care, which will open the gateway to evidence-based procedures and healthcare in the coming years. With the support of AO Investigation and Documentation, a classification group was established to develop and evaluate a comprehensive classification system for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures. Blueprints for fracture classification in the major constituents of the human skull were drafted and then evaluated by a multispecialty group of experienced CMF surgeons and a radiologist in a structured process during iterative agreement sessions. At each session, surgeons independently classified the radiological imaging of up to 150 consecutive cases with CMF fractures. During subsequent review meetings, all discrepancies in the classification outcome were critically appraised for clarification and improvement until consensus was reached. The resulting CMF classification system is structured in a hierarchical fashion with three levels of increasing complexity. The most elementary level 1 simply distinguishes four fracture locations within the skull: mandible (code 91), midface (code 92), skull base (code 93), and cranial vault (code 94). Levels 2 and 3 focus on further defining the fracture locations and for fracture morphology, achieving an almost individual mapping of the fracture pattern. This introductory article describes the rationale for the comprehensive AO CMF classification system, discusses the methodological framework, and provides insight into the experiences and interactions during the evaluation process within the core groups. The details of this system in terms of anatomy and levels are presented in a series of focused tutorials illustrated with case examples in this special issue of the Journal.

Risk of bias in research in oral and maxillofacial surgery

The risk of bias is important in the interpretation of the results of research. The aim of this review was to evaluate the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) over a 10-year period. We searched databases of publications for RCTs published between January 2000 and January 2010. Papers were assessed with 2 up-to-date logical quality lists, the Delphi list and the Jadad scale. Those papers with a low risk of bias were given a Jadad score ≥4 (range 0-5) and a Delphi score ≥6 (range 0-9). A total of 230 papers met the inclusion criteria, and only 41 (18%) were assessed as being at low risk. Most of those included did not correctly describe such important items for risk of bias as method of randomisation (n=124, 54%), concealment of allocation (n=143, 62%), blinding (n=175, 76%), and intention-to-treat analyses (n=182, 79%). In the fields of implantology, traumatology, obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome, and extractions, no paper had a low risk of bias. This systematic review has shown a shortage of research in OMFS with a low risk of bias published over a 10-year period. Further research should concentrate on better describing items at important risk of bias.

The level of evidence in two leading endodontic journals

INTRODUCTION

The successful practice of dentistry, including endodontics, relies on a wide spectrum of dental research. The quantity and quality of research evidence in endodontics have seldom been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of evidence in current leading endodontic journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the articles published in 2000, 2006 and 2010 in two major endodontic journals (Journal of Endodontics and International Endodontic Journal) were evaluated. These articles were classified according to the level of evidence (LOE) using Oxford Scale from 0 to 5 and type of the study.

RESULTS

Of the articles assessed, 3.2% were clinical trials, 47.8% were experimental, 5.6% were animal studies and 43.4% were of other types. Subdivisions according to LOE were 4.3% as level 1, 0.9 % level 2, 7.3% level 3, 0.4% level 4 and 3.5% level 5. Overall, 83.6% of the articles were classified as "non-evidence-based". There was a marginally significant increase in the percentage of articles with high level of evidence in recent years.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial shortage of articles with high level of evidence in clinical endodontics. However, there was a gradual increase in the number of high LOE articles published in both journals.

Protocols in cleft lip and palate treatment: systematic review

Objectives. To find clinical decisions on cleft treatment based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Method. Searches were made in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library on cleft lip and/or palate. From the 170 articles found in the searches, 28 were considered adequate to guide clinical practice. Results. A scarce number of RCTs were found approaching cleft treatment. The experimental clinical approaches analyzed in the 28 articles were infant orthopedics, rectal acetaminophen, palatal block with bupivacaine, infraorbital nerve block with bupivacaine, osteogenesis distraction, intravenous dexamethasone sodium phosphate, and alveoloplasty with bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2). Conclusions. Few randomized controlled trials were found approaching cleft treatment, and fewer related to surgical repair of this deformity. So there is a need for more multicenter collaborations, mainly on surgical area, to reduce the variety of treatment modalities and to ensure that the cleft patient receives an evidence-based clinical practice.

The impact of case reports in oral and maxillofacial surgery

This review examines the effect of publishing case reports on journal impact factor and future research. All case reports published in the four major English language oral and maxillofacial surgery journals in the two year period, 2007-2008, were searched manually. The citation data of each case report were retrieved from the ISI online database. The number, percentage and mean citations received by case reports and their relation to the 2009 journal impact factor were analysed. Case reports which received more than 5 citations were also identified and all of the citing articles retrieved and analysed. Thirty-one percent of all articles published in major oral and maxillofacial journals in 2007-2008 were case reports. Case reports had a low citation rate with a mean citation of less than 1. There were 38 (7.2%) case reports with more than 5 citations and 30% of the citing articles were also case reports. The publication of case reports negatively affected journal impact factor which correlated directly with the percentage of case reports published within a journal. Case reports reporting recent topics, describing new treatment/diagnosis method and with a literature review were more likely to receive citations.

The evidence base for oral and maxillofacial surgery: 10-year analysis of two journals

All articles published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS) and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (IJOMS) between January 1999 and December 2009 were classified by study design and evaluated to find the evidence base in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Those in related specialties, and the impact factor of related dental journals were also compared. From a total of 3294 articles (1715 (52%) BJOMS; and 1579 (48%) IJOMS) most of the studies were observational or descriptive (36% BJOMS; and 31% IJOMS). Review articles constituted 5% in the British Journal and 6% in the International Journal. Analytical (non-controlled) studies made up 6% and 7% of the studies in the British Journal and the International Journal, respectively. There were 28 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (2%) in the British Journal and 40 (3%) in the International Journal. One meta-analysis was recorded in the International Journal, and one closed loop audit was recorded in the British Journal. Forty percent of the papers in both journals were non-clinical, scientific, or animal studies. The number of RCTs published in OMFS is low and is comparable with the related specialties of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) (1%) and plastic surgery (4%). Greater effort is required to carry out quality research if we are to provide the best possible evidence to patients for our interventions.

Risk factors of neurosensory deficits in lower third molar surgery: an literature review of prospective studies

This literature review assessed the risk factors linked to inferior dental nerve (IDN) and lingual nerve (LN) deficits following lower wisdom tooth surgery. A computer search of several databases with specified key words was performed. 32 articles were selected; the risk factors for IDN deficit were reported in 4 articles, LN in 9 and both IDN and LN in 19. Data were analysed statistically to evaluate the potential risk factors. Literature review showed specific radiographic signs and intra-operative IDN exposure increased the risk of IDN deficit. Raising the lingual flap significantly increased the risk of LN deficit. Unerupted tooth and lingual split technique increased IDN and LN deficit risks significantly. Age was linked to IDN and LN deficits, and deep impaction was related to IDN deficit, but no statistical tests were performed on these two risk factors owing to the heterogeneity of data from the studies. This literature review found increased age, unerupted tooth, deep impaction, specific radiographic signs, intra-operative IDN exposure and lingual split technique were risk factors for IDN deficit; increased age, unerupted tooth, distal impaction, raising of lingual flap and lingual split technique were risks factors for LN deficit in lower wisdom tooth surgery.

Facial soft tissue response to anterior segmental osteotomies: a systematic review

Bimaxillary protrusion is prevalent among Asians and anterior segmental osteotomies are commonly used for its surgical correction. The objective of this study was to evaluate the soft tissue changes resulting from anterior segmental osteotomies. The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of knowledge were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords. Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and their references were manually searched for additional relevant articles. The study details and outcome data of these reports were extracted using spreadsheets for comparison. The methodological quality of each study was assessed. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Lateral cephalometry was used in all studies. A reduction of the labial prominence with an increase in the nasolabial angle was noted subsequent to anterior segmental osteotomies. The magnitude of the reported soft tissue changes and their ratios corresponding to the osseous movements varied among studies. Long-term, prospective, methodologically sound clinical trials with larger samples and three-dimensional quantification are required to provide sufficient information for predicting the soft tissue response to anterior segmental osteotomies.

Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation?--a study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference

The Annual Scientific Conference of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) provides an opportunity for colleagues to present papers to their peers, which can be beneficial both for professional development and for trainees to enhance their future career prospects. Each year far more abstracts are submitted than slots are available for oral presentation. These abstracts are reviewed by a paper selection committee, made up of several BAOMS colleagues. To our knowledge, there have not been any previous studies that have evaluated whether the type of study submitted (retrospective study, audit, prospective and so on) or the surgical sub-specialty is more likely to be accepted for presentation. Of 237 abstracts submitted for oral presentation at the 2009 conference, 99 were accepted (42% overall acceptance rate). Oncology and salivary gland disease formed the greatest proportion of total submissions (23%) followed by miscellaneous clinical papers (19%). The commonest type of submissions were retrospective studies (19%) followed by case report/series (15%). The greatest acceptance rate in this series was for orthognathic and TMJ papers (P<0.01) while for type of presentation, research/laboratory studies, technical procedures and randomised trials were most likely to be accepted (P<0.01 for all). It is possible that there are a certain number of slots allocated for presentation in each sub-category, which may increase competition in certain areas, but further work is necessary in this area. We recommend some general points for the successful acceptance of abstracts.

Publish or perish? A survey of abstracts accepted for meetings of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and subsequently published

Publications are important for all surgeons, including those practising oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). The results of relevant research are usually presented at the annual scientific meetings of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS). The aim of this study was to find out how many abstracts that were accepted for presentation at the BAOMS go on to be published. Lists of abstracts accepted at BAOMS meetings 2002-2006 were obtained, and a thorough search was made for each article using the web-based search engine PubMed. Related publications were recorded. A total of 623 abstracts were accepted, of which only 147 (24%) resulted in peer-reviewed publication. Compared with clinical studies, scientific research was in the minority, but was more likely to appear in print and in journals with higher impact factors. Units with senior academic input had better records of publication. Currently only a small fraction of studies deemed worthy of presentation at the BAOMS become publications. This conversion from presentation to print is facilitated by strong academic support. Exposing trainees in OMFS training posts to basic research training might improve their ability to publish.