Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health

Exploring approaches to pulp vitality assessment: A scoping review of nontraditional methods

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic procedures for pulp vitality assessment are a crucial aspect of routine dental practice. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of nontraditional techniques and methodologies for assessing pulp vitality, specifically exploring promising approaches that are currently not used in dental practice.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered a priori (https://osf.io/3m97z/). An extensive electronic search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were guided by the research question based on the PCC model as follows: "What are the potential nontraditional techniques (Concept) for assessing pulp vitality (Population) in the field of endodontics or clinical practice (Context)?" Studies were included that explored possible approaches to pulp vitality assessment, utilizing a range of techniques, whilst any studies using traditional pulp tests (cold, heat, and electric stimulation) or well-known methods (pulse oximetry and laser Doppler flowmetry) were excluded. Reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data. A patent search was also performed.

RESULTS

Of 3062 studies, 65 were included that described nontraditional approaches for assessing pulp vitality. These included a range of optical diagnostic methods, ultrasound Doppler flowmetry (UDF), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), terahertz imaging, tooth temperature measurements, as well as invasive methodologies, including 133xenon washout, radioisotope-labelled tracers, hydrogen gas desaturation, intravital microscopy and fluorescent microspheres isotope clearance. The patent search included artificial intelligence and biomarkers methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides details for potential innovative tests that may directly describe pulp vitality. Importantly, these methods range from clinically impractical through to promising methods that may transform clinical practice. Several nontraditional techniques have the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and could provide valuable insights into the assessment of pulp vitality in challenging clinical scenarios.

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).

CONCLUSION

This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.