Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry

An in vitro assessment of optimizing implant positions in bilateral distal extension implant-assisted removable partial dentures: A microstress analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the stress distribution on dental implants in various positions when used with implant-assisted removable partial dentures.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This was an in vitro study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A model representing a mandibular bilateral partially edentulous condition, with missing premolars and molars, was fabricated using epoxy resin. Two implants of similar diameter measuring 4.0 mm × 10 mm (Dentium, Korea) were inserted in the second molar and the second premolar region on either side of the model for comparing the biomechanical effect of various implant locations. Two types of loads 100N and 125N were applied vertically using universal testing machines in the premolar and molar regions. The loads on the implants beneath the cast partial denture were measured by physical stress analysis using a microstrain gauge.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

A comparison of maximum stress observed at the premolar versus molar regions due to the application of the 100N and 125N loads was done using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

In physical stress analysis, obtained results were statistically analyzed, and the result was statistically not significant (P = 0.435 at 100N and P = 0.718 at 125N) in positional changes of implant.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, the statistical analysis of physical stress revealed no significant differences in stress values between the loadings at the premolar and molar regions. This suggests that the implant can be placed in either the premolar or molar region based on the availability of bone without affecting stress distribution.

Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended".

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.

Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended".

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.

Correction: Methodological Quality of Consensus Guidelines in Implant Dentistry

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170262.].