Jadbinder Seehra

Bullying in orthodontic patients and its relationship to malocclusion,self-esteem and oral health-related quality of life.

Objectives To measure the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying amongst patients referred for orthodontic treatment and to investigate whether there is a relationship between levels of self-reported bullying, malocclusion and need for orthodontic treatment and an individuals self-esteem and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Design and setting Cross-sectional study of an adolescent group referred for orthodontic assessment at three UK hospitals. Subjects and methods Three hundred and thirty-six participants aged between 10 and 14 years were recruited. Validated questionnaires were used to measure the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying, self-esteem and OHRQoL. Orthodontic treatment need was assessed using IOTN. Results The prevalence of bullying was 12·8%. Being bullied was significantly associated with Class II Division 1 incisor relationship (P = 0·041), increased overbite (P = 0·023), increased overjet (P = 0·001) and a high need for orthodontic treatment assessed using AC IOTN (P = 0·014). Bullied participants also reported lower levels of social competence (P<0·001), athletic competence (P<0·001), physical appearance related self-esteem (P<0·001) and general self-esteem (P<0·001). Higher levels of oral symptoms (P = 0·032), functional limitations (P<0·001), emotional (P<0·001) and social impact (P<0·001) from their oral condition, resulting in a negative impact on overall OHRQoL (P<0·001), were also reported. Conclusions Significant relationships exist between bullying and certain occlusal traits, self-esteem and OHRQoL.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

OBJECTIVES To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). MATERIALS AND METHODS Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. CONCLUSION Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

The aims of this study were to assess and compare the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) using AMSTAR and to compare the prevalence of meta-analysis in both review types. A literature search was undertaken to identify SRs that consisted of hand-searching five major orthodontic journals [American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics and Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (February 2002 to July 2011)] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2000 to July 2011. Methodological quality of the included reviews was gauged using the AMSTAR tool involving 11 key methodological criteria with a score of 0 or 1 given for each criterion. A cumulative grade was given for the paper overall (0-11); an overall score of 4 or less represented poor methodological quality, 5-8 was considered fair and 9 or greater was deemed to be good. In total, 109 SRs were identified in the five major journals and on the CDSR. Of these, 26 (23.9%) were in the CDSR. The mean overall AMSTAR score was 6.2 with 21.1% of reviews satisfying 9 or more of the 11 criteria; a similar prevalence of poor reviews (22%) was also noted. Multiple linear regression indicated that reviews published in the CDSR (P < 0.01); and involving meta-analysis (β = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 2.07, P < 0.001) showed greater concordance with AMSTAR.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

INTRODUCTION Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals. METHODS Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05). RESULTS Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7). CONCLUSIONS The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.

Interceptive orthodontic treatment in bullied adolescents and its impact on self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life

The aim of this follow-up study was to measure the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying in orthodontic patients previously identified as being bullied, who have commenced interceptive orthodontic treatment, and to investigate the effect on an individuals self-esteem and oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Forty-three adolescents previously identified as being bullied due to the presence of a malocclusion were invited to take part in a follow-up study following commencement of orthodontic treatment at three UK Hospitals. Validated questionnaires were used to assess the self-reported frequency and severity of bullying, self-esteem and OHRQoL. The participation rate at follow-up was 63 per cent. Following commencement of orthodontic treatment, 21 (78 per cent) participants reported they were currently no longer being bullied due to the presence of their malocclusion. In comparison to their pre-treatment scores, participants reported fewer functional limitations (P = 0.013), decreased emotional (P < 0.001) and social impact (P < 0.001), and improved overall oral health (P = 0.03) and OHRQoL (P = 0.002). In addition, an improvement in functional limitations (P = 0.021), emotional (P = 0.008), social impact (P = 0.008) and OHRQoL (P = 0.02) was reported by participants who were no longer being bullied in comparison to those who continued to report bullying. There appears to be no effect on an individuals self-esteem. Orthodontic treatment may have a positive effect on adolescents experiencing bullying related to their malocclusion and their OHRQoL.

Reporting Quality of Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Dental Specialty Journals

OBJECTIVES A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of Class III malocclusion

OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of Reverse Twin-Block therapy (RTB) and protraction face mask treatment (PFM) with respect to an untreated control in the correction of developing Class III malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective comparative study of subjects treated cases with either PFM (n  =  9) or RTB (n  =  13) and untreated matched controls (n  =  10) was performed. Both the PFM and control group samples were derived from a previously conducted clinical trial, and the RTB group was formed of consecutively treated cases. The main outcome variables assessed were skeletal and dental changes. Lateral cephalograms were taken at the start and end of treatment or during the observation period. Analysis of variance was used to compare changes in cephalometric variables arising during the study period in the lateral group. Linear regression analysis and an unpaired t-test were used to determine the impacts of treatment duration and gender, respectively. RESULTS Significantly greater skeletal changes arose with PFM therapy than with RTB therapy or in the control group (SNA, SNB, and ANB; P < .001). The dentoalveolar effects of RTB therapy exceeded those of PFM treatment, with significantly more maxillary incisor proclination (P < .001) and mandibular incisor retroclination (P < .006) arising with treatment. CONCLUSIONS Both appliances are capable of correction of Class III dental relationships; however, the relative skeletal and dental contributions differ. Skeletal effects, chiefly anterior maxillary translation, predominated with PFM therapy. The RTB appliance induced Class III correction, primarily as a result of dentoalveolar effects.

Are Sample Sizes Clear and Justified in RCTs Published in Dental Journals

Sample size calculations are advocated by the CONSORT group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was primarily to evaluate the reporting of sample size calculations, to establish the accuracy of these calculations in dental RCTs and to explore potential predictors associated with adequate reporting. Electronic searching was undertaken in eight leading specific and general dental journals. Replication of sample size calculations was undertaken where possible. Assumed variances or odds for control and intervention groups were also compared against those observed. The relationship between parameters including journal type, number of authors, trial design, involvement of methodologist, single-/multi-center study and region and year of publication, and the accuracy of sample size reporting was assessed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Of 413 RCTs identified, sufficient information to allow replication of sample size calculations was provided in only 121 studies (29.3%). Recalculations demonstrated an overall median overestimation of sample size of 15.2% after provisions for losses to follow-up. There was evidence that journal, methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, CI: 1.10, 3.53), multi-center settings (OR = 1.86, CI: 1.01, 3.43) and time since publication (OR = 1.24, CI: 1.12, 1.38) were significant predictors of adequate description of sample size assumptions. Among journals JCP had the highest odds of adequately reporting sufficient data to permit sample size recalculation, followed by AJODO and JDR, with 61% (OR = 0.39, CI: 0.19, 0.80) and 66% (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15, 0.75) lower odds, respectively. Both assumed variances and odds were found to underestimate the observed values. Presentation of sample size calculations in the dental literature is suboptimal; incorrect assumptions may have a bearing on the power of RCTs.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.