The Experts below are selected from a list of 1560 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Jose A Vina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • application of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology a literature review
    Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Jose A Vina, Marya Elalami, Juan Gambini, Consuelo Borras, Maria Penarrocha
    Abstract:

    Objective: The aim of this work was to review de literature about the role of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, specifically, in the time require to promote bone regeneration. Study Desing: A bibliographic search was carried out in PUBMED with a combination of different key words. Animal and human studies that assessed histomorphometrically the influence of mesenchymal stem cells on bone regeneration procedures in Oral Implantology surgeries were examined. Reults: - Alveolar regeneration: Different controlled histomorphometric animal studies showed that bone regeneration is faster using stem cells seeded in scaffolds than using scaffolds or platelet rich plasma alone. Human studies revealed that stem cells increase bone regeneration. - Maxillary sinus lift: Controlled studies in animals and in humans showed higher bone regeneration applying stem cells compared with controls. - Periimplantary bone regeneration and alveolar distraction: Studies in animals showed higher regeneration when stem cells are used. In humans, no evidence of applying mesenchymal stem cells in these regeneration procedures was found. Conclusion: Stem cells may promote bone regeneration and be useful in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the rather limited clinical studies so far performed.

  • Application of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology. A literature review.
    Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Jose A Vina, Juan Gambini, Consuelo Borras, Marya El-alami, Maria Penarrocha
    Abstract:

    The aim of this work was to review de literature about the role of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, specifically, in the time require to promote bone regeneration. [corrected] A bibliographic search was carried out in PUBMED with a combination of different key words. Animal and human studies that assessed histomorphometrically the influence of mesenchymal stem cells on bone regeneration procedures in Oral Implantology surgeries were examined. Reults: - Alveolar regeneration: Different controlled histomorphometric animal studies showed that bone regeneration is faster using stem cells seeded in scaffolds than using scaffolds or platelet rich plasma alone. Human studies revealed that stem cells increase bone regeneration. - Maxillary sinus lift: Controlled studies in animals and in humans showed higher bone regeneration applying stem cells compared with controls. - Periimplantary bone regeneration and alveolar distraction: Studies in animals showed higher regeneration when stem cells are used. In humans, no evidence of applying mesenchymal stem cells in these regeneration procedures was found. Stem cells may promote bone regeneration and be useful in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the rather limited clinical studies so far performed. Key words:Mesenchymal stem cells, bone regeneration, dental implants, Oral surgery, tissue engineering.

Yukang Tu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals: 2008‐2018
    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Qing Hu, Tingting Zhang, Philip Riley, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals during 2008-2018, and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013 and 2018 in six Oral Implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study was extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. RESULTS A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2% and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p=0.002) and AAS (p=0.005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. CONCLUSIONS During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of Oral Implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

  • trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals 2008 2018
    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Qing Hu, Tingting Zhang, Philip Riley, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    Objectives To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. Materials and methods Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six Oral Implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. Results A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. Conclusions During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of Oral Implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

  • spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and Oral Implantology a cross sectional analysis
    Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Xiaolin Fang, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES To investigate the presence and characteristics of spin (a distorted interpretation to make research findings seem favorable) in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and Oral Implantology, and to explore its associated factors and influence on the subsequent literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed was searched to identify recent RCTs in periodontology and Oral Implantology, whose primary outcome was non-significant. Spin in abstracts was assessed and categorized according to pre-determined spin strategies. The associations between study characteristics and the presence / severity of spin were analyzed using multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS 196 abstracts were included, 137 (69.9%) of which had spin. 57 (29.1%) abstracts had spin in the Results Section, 126 (64.3%) had spin in the Conclusion Section. The main spin strategies in the Results and Conclusion Sections were focusing on secondary outcomes (16.3%) and focusing on within-group comparisons (28.6%), respectively. The presence of spin was associated with number of centers (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73; p=0.009) while its severity was associated with topic (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS The frequency of spin is relatively high among published RCT abstracts in periodontology and Oral Implantology. Findings reported in these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Maria Penarrocha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • application of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology a literature review
    Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Jose A Vina, Marya Elalami, Juan Gambini, Consuelo Borras, Maria Penarrocha
    Abstract:

    Objective: The aim of this work was to review de literature about the role of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, specifically, in the time require to promote bone regeneration. Study Desing: A bibliographic search was carried out in PUBMED with a combination of different key words. Animal and human studies that assessed histomorphometrically the influence of mesenchymal stem cells on bone regeneration procedures in Oral Implantology surgeries were examined. Reults: - Alveolar regeneration: Different controlled histomorphometric animal studies showed that bone regeneration is faster using stem cells seeded in scaffolds than using scaffolds or platelet rich plasma alone. Human studies revealed that stem cells increase bone regeneration. - Maxillary sinus lift: Controlled studies in animals and in humans showed higher bone regeneration applying stem cells compared with controls. - Periimplantary bone regeneration and alveolar distraction: Studies in animals showed higher regeneration when stem cells are used. In humans, no evidence of applying mesenchymal stem cells in these regeneration procedures was found. Conclusion: Stem cells may promote bone regeneration and be useful in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the rather limited clinical studies so far performed.

  • Application of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology. A literature review.
    Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Jose A Vina, Juan Gambini, Consuelo Borras, Marya El-alami, Maria Penarrocha
    Abstract:

    The aim of this work was to review de literature about the role of mesenchymal stem cells in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, specifically, in the time require to promote bone regeneration. [corrected] A bibliographic search was carried out in PUBMED with a combination of different key words. Animal and human studies that assessed histomorphometrically the influence of mesenchymal stem cells on bone regeneration procedures in Oral Implantology surgeries were examined. Reults: - Alveolar regeneration: Different controlled histomorphometric animal studies showed that bone regeneration is faster using stem cells seeded in scaffolds than using scaffolds or platelet rich plasma alone. Human studies revealed that stem cells increase bone regeneration. - Maxillary sinus lift: Controlled studies in animals and in humans showed higher bone regeneration applying stem cells compared with controls. - Periimplantary bone regeneration and alveolar distraction: Studies in animals showed higher regeneration when stem cells are used. In humans, no evidence of applying mesenchymal stem cells in these regeneration procedures was found. Stem cells may promote bone regeneration and be useful in bone regenerative procedures in Oral Implantology, but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the rather limited clinical studies so far performed. Key words:Mesenchymal stem cells, bone regeneration, dental implants, Oral surgery, tissue engineering.

Xinyu Wu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals: 2008‐2018
    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Qing Hu, Tingting Zhang, Philip Riley, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals during 2008-2018, and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013 and 2018 in six Oral Implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study was extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. RESULTS A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2% and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p=0.002) and AAS (p=0.005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. CONCLUSIONS During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of Oral Implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

  • trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals 2008 2018
    Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Qing Hu, Tingting Zhang, Philip Riley, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    Objectives To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading Oral Implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact. Materials and methods Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six Oral Implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects. Results A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies. Conclusions During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of Oral Implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

  • spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in periodontology and Oral Implantology a cross sectional analysis
    Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Xinyu Wu, Xiaolin Fang, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES To investigate the presence and characteristics of spin (a distorted interpretation to make research findings seem favorable) in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and Oral Implantology, and to explore its associated factors and influence on the subsequent literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed was searched to identify recent RCTs in periodontology and Oral Implantology, whose primary outcome was non-significant. Spin in abstracts was assessed and categorized according to pre-determined spin strategies. The associations between study characteristics and the presence / severity of spin were analyzed using multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS 196 abstracts were included, 137 (69.9%) of which had spin. 57 (29.1%) abstracts had spin in the Results Section, 126 (64.3%) had spin in the Conclusion Section. The main spin strategies in the Results and Conclusion Sections were focusing on secondary outcomes (16.3%) and focusing on within-group comparisons (28.6%), respectively. The presence of spin was associated with number of centers (OR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73; p=0.009) while its severity was associated with topic (OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS The frequency of spin is relatively high among published RCT abstracts in periodontology and Oral Implantology. Findings reported in these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Argy Polychronopoulou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of Oral Implantology
    Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 2014
    Co-Authors: Juliana Kiriakou, Nikolaos Pandis, Phoebus N Madianos, Argy Polychronopoulou
    Abstract:

    Abstract Aim Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. Material and Methods Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. Results One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6–59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8–65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. Conclusions The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

  • reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading Oral Implantology journals
    Journal of Dentistry, 2013
    Co-Authors: Juliana Kiriakou, Nikolaos Pandis, Phoebus N Madianos, Padhraig S Fleming, Argy Polychronopoulou
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading Oral Implantology journals. Methods Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Results Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8–74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in Implantology journals requires further improvement. Clinical significance Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.