Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini-implants in clinical practice: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anti-Peri-implantitis Bacteria's Ability of Robusta Green Coffee Bean (Coffea Canephora) Ethanol Extract: An In Silico and In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

 This study was aimed to investigate RGCBE extract as antioxidant and anti-peri-implantitis bacteria through in vitro study and its potential as antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antibone resorption, and proosteogenic through in silico study.

MATERIALS

AND METHODS:  Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity prediction, molecular docking simulation, and visualization of chlorogenic acid (CGA) and coumaric acid (CA) as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antibacterial were investigated in silico. Inhibition zone by diffusion method, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of RGCBE extract against Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi) were done.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

the analysis of variance (ANOVA) difference test, and the post-hoc Tukey's Honest Significant Different (HSD) with a different significance value of p<0.05 RESULTS:  GCA and CA compounds are good drug molecules and it has low toxicity. Chlorogenic acid have higher binding activity than coumaric acid to tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, nuclear factor (NF)-κB, receptor activation NF-κB (RANK) and its ligand (RANKL), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, runt related transcription factor (RUNX2), receptor activator nuclear Kappa beta Ligand-osteoprotegrin osteocalcin (RANKL-OPG), osteocalcin, nuclear factor associated T-cell 1 (NFATc1), tartate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), peptidoglycan, flagellin, dectin, Hsp70, and Hsp10 protein. RGCB ethanol extract has high antioxidant ability and it has MIC, MBC, and inhibit the growth of Aa, Pg, Fn, and Pi at 50% concentration with significantly different (p=0.0001 and<0.05).

CONCLUSION

 RGCB ethanol extract has high antioxidant ability and 50% RGCB ethanol extract may act as strong anti-peri-implantitis bacteria in vitro. In addition, CGA in RGCB potential as antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antibone resorption, and proosteogenic in silico.

Using big data to promote precision oral health in the context of a learning healthcare system

There has been a call for evidence-based oral healthcare guidelines, to improve precision dentistry and oral healthcare delivery. The main challenges to this goal are the current lack of up-to-date evidence, the limited integrative analytical data sets, and the slow translations to routine care delivery. Overcoming these issues requires knowledge discovery pipelines based on big data and health analytics, intelligent integrative informatics approaches, and learning health systems. This article examines how this can be accomplished by utilizing big data. These data can be gathered from four major streams: patients, clinical data, biological data, and normative data sets. All these must then be uniformly combined for analysis and modelling and the meaningful findings can be implemented clinically. By executing data capture cycles and integrating the subsequent findings, practitioners are able to improve public oral health and care delivery.

Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated and compared the completeness of reporting of abstracts of orthodontics systematic reviews before and after the publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Abstracts Checklist (PRISMA-A).

METHODS

Abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics published in PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases before March 23, 2018, that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, were evaluated using the 12 items of PRISMA-A, scoring each item from 0 to 2. Abstracts were classified into 2 groups: before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist. Three calibrated evaluators (intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa > 0.8) assessed the scores for compliance with the checklist. The number of authors, country of affiliation of the first author, performance of meta-analysis, and topic of the article were recorded. A regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between abstract characteristics and the PRISMA-A scores.

RESULTS

Of 1034 abstracts evaluated, 389 were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-A score was 53.39 (95% CI, 51.83-54.96). The overall score for studies published after the publication of the checklist was significantly higher than for studies published before (P ≤ 0.0001). The components returning significantly higher scores after publication of PRISMA-A were title (P = 0.024), information from databases (P = 0.026), risk of bias (P ≤ 0.0001), included studies (P ≤ 0.0001), synthesis of results (P ≤ 0.0001), interpretation of results (P = 0.035), financing and conflict of interest (P ≤ 0.0001), and registration (P ≤ 0.0001). These results showed the positive effect of PRISMA-A had on the quality of reporting of orthodontics systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the poor adherence revealed that there is still need for improvement in the quality of abstract reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of abstracts of orthodontic systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased after the introduction of PRISMA-A.

Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey

BACKGROUND

Synthesizing outcomes of underreported primary studies can pose a serious threat to the validity of outcomes and conclusions of systematic reviews. To address this problem, the Cochrane Collaboration recommends reviewers to contact authors of eligible primary studies to obtain additional information on poorly reported items. In this protocol, we present a cross-sectional study and a survey to assess (1) how reviewers of new Cochrane intervention reviews report on procedures and outcomes of contacting of authors of primary studies to obtain additional data, (2) how authors reply, and (3) the consequences of these additional data on the outcomes and quality scores in the review. All research questions and methods were pilot tested on 2 months of Cochrane reviews and were subsequently fine-tuned.

METHODS FOR THE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Eligibility criteria are (1) all new (not-updates) Cochrane intervention reviews published in 2016, (2) reviews that included one or more primary studies, and (3) eligible interventions refer to contacting of authors of the eligible primary studies included in the review to obtain additional research data (e.g., information on unreported or missing data, individual patient data, research methods, and bias issues). Searching for eligible reviews and data extraction will be conducted by two authors independently. The cross-sectional study will primarily focus on how contacting of authors is conducted and reported, how contacted authors reply, and how reviewers report on obtained additional data and their consequences for the review.

METHODS FOR THE SURVEY

The same eligible reviews for the cross-sectional study will also be eligible for the survey. Surveys will be sent to the contact addresses of these reviews according to a pre-defined protocol. We will use Google Forms as our survey platform. Surveyees are asked to answer eight questions. The survey will primarily focus on the consequences of contacting authors of eligible primary studies for the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scores and the primary and secondary outcomes of the review.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study could help improve methods of contacting authors and reporting of these procedures and their outcomes. Patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, research sponsors, and the general public will all be beneficiaries.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Numerous surveys have shown that orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) are underused in clinical practice. To investigate this implementation issue, we conducted a systematic review to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs for all potential stakeholders and (2) quantify these implementation constructs, i.e., record their prevalence. We also recorded the prevalence of clinicians in the eligible studies that do not use OMIs.

METHODS

Methods were based on our published protocol. Broad-spectrum eligibility criteria were defined. A barrier was defined as any variable that impedes or obstructs the use of OMIs and a facilitator as any variable that eases and promotes their use. Over 30 databases including gray literature were searched until 15 January 2016. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool for studies reporting prevalence and incidence data was used to critically appraise the included studies. Outcomes were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were only conducted when pre-set criteria were fulfilled. Three reviewers conducted all research procedures independently. We also contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain additional information.

RESULTS

Three surveys fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Seventeen implementation constructs were identified in these studies and were extracted from a total of 165 patients and 1391 clinicians. Eight of the 17 constructs were scored by more than 50 % of the pertinent stakeholders. Three of these constructs overlapped between studies. Contacting of authors clarified various uncertainties but was not always successful. Limitations of the eligible studies included (1) the small number of studies; (2) not defining the research questions, i.e., the primary outcomes; (3) the research design (surveys) of the studies and the exclusive use of closed-ended questions; (4) not consulting standards for identifying implementation constructs; (5) the lack of pilot testing; (6) high heterogeneity; (7) the risk of reporting bias; and (8) additional shortcomings. Meta-analyses were not possible because of these limitations. Two eligible studies found that respectively 56.3 % (952/1691) and 40.16 % (439/1093) of clinicians do not use OMIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the limitations of the eligible studies, their findings were important because (1) 17 implementation constructs were identified of which 8 were scored by more than 50 % of the stakeholders; (2) the various shortcomings showed how to improve on future implementation studies; and (3) the underuse of OMIs in the selected studies and in the literature demonstrated the need to identify, quantify, and address implementation constructs. Prioritizing of future research questions on OMIs with all pertinent stakeholders is an important first step and could redirect research studies on OMIs towards implementation issues. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, insurance companies, implant companies, and research sponsors will all be beneficiaries.