Are Most of the Published Clinical Trial Results in Restorative Dentistry Invalid? An Empirical Investigation

BACKGROUND

To establish the number of invalid clinical trial reports in restorative dentistry, due to lack of effective randomisation and/or inadequate sample size and whether this number changed, during the 1990-2019 period.

METHODS

Databases were searched up to 14 July 2019 without limitations regarding publication language. A Journal hand search and reference check were conducted for trial reports. Selection criteria were: reporting on a prospective, controlled clinical trial; relevance to placing direct tooth restorations in human vital teeth; direct comparison between restorative materials concerning tooth restoration longevity; trial report published from 1990. Randomisation reported (Yes/No) and treatment group sample size ≥ 200 were applied as criteria, using the deductive falsification approach for trial report appraisal.

RESULTS

683 trial reports were appraised. 660 lacked effective randomisation. Of the remaining 23 reports, only 2 included a sample size of more than 200 restored teeth (mean number per treatment group 87; Standard deviation = 108.51). 92.5% of all treatment groups had a sample size of < 200. Randomisation reporting increased and sample size remained essentially unchanged between 1990 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

Most of the published clinical trial results in restorative dentistry were judged invalid, due to lack of effective randomisation and adequate sample size. These results are in line with previous findings. Evidence-based recommendations on how to improve trial methodology are available in the dental/medical literature.

The role of the randomised controlled trial in restorative dentistry and the correct purpose of observational data

It has been argued that the randomised controlled trial design is unsuitable for restorative dentistry and that cohort studies or the analysis of large observational datasets without randomisation is more suitable. This opinion article examines why randomisation in clinical trials is needed and why big observational data is not enough for clinical inference.

Reporting of light irradiation conditions in 300 laboratory studies of resin-composites

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the light delivered to resin-composites was described in recent articles.

METHOD

PubMed was searched for 300 articles published between January 2017 and May 2018 with keywords relating to photocuring of dental materials. The articles examined a wide range of resin-composite properties and performance. For each article, the information provided about the light curing unit (LCU), the light curing conditions and the characteristics and quantity of the light used in the study were recorded. Specifically, the type of LCU used; the irradiance; how the irradiance was measured; the exposure times; whether the light energy (radiant exposure) received by the specimen was determined, or if only the light output at the LCU tip was measured; whether the distance between the tip of the LCU and the specimen was reported; and whether the emission spectrum from the LCU was reported. Where possible, the resin manufacturer's minimum energy requirement (MER: the product of the recommended minimum exposure time and irradiance) was compared to the radiant exposure delivered to the specimen.

RESULTS

Of the 300 articles examined, 217 were published in 2017 and 83 in 2018. Of these articles, 130 (43%) were found in open access journals, and 170 (57%) were in subscription-based journals. The name of the LCU used was not provided in 31 articles, 14 articles did not provide the exposure time, and 227 articles did not report the distance to the specimen. An irradiance value was reported in 231 articles, but this was the irradiance received by the specimen in only 48 instances. The emission spectrum from the LCU was reported in 15 articles. There was a large range in the radiant exposures from below 10J/cm² to greater than 100J/cm².

SIGNIFICANCE

The majority of articles from 2017 and early 2018 did not include sufficient description of the characteristics and quantity of the light received by the resin-composite specimens to allow the study to be replicated. It is recommended that future articles should report: (1) the identity of the LCU used; (2) the radiant exposure received by the specimen (J/cm²); and (3) appropriate reference to the emission spectrum from the LCU.