The Experts below are selected from a list of 327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Niklaus P Lang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Clovis Mariano Faggion - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Methodological evaluation of reviews that support recommendations from three consensus workshops in Periodontology.
    Journal of Dentistry, 2019
    Co-Authors: Clovis Mariano Faggion, Daniel Hagenfeld
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate comprehensiveness and reproducibility of reviews that support consensus guidelines in Periodontology. Methods We included the reviews that support consensus guidelines from three workshops in Periodontology, which were overseen by likely the two most important organisations in the field: the European Federation of Periodontology and the American Academy of Periodontology. We independently evaluated the comprehensiveness of literature searches by determining whether authors had searched reference lists, journals, registries and grey literature and whether the searches were limited to only one or a few languages. We evaluated whether review authors reported the eligibility criteria, the search strategies, and the list of included/excluded articles. We tested whether the search and selection of articles in one major database was reproducible. Results Twenty-nine reviews were evaluated. Two (7%) reviews reported grey literature searches, and more than two-thirds of the reviews did not report hand-searching. Almost half of the reviews did not report whether there was language restriction for the literature searches. Two-thirds of the reviews reported the use of keywords only (without Boolean operators). One-fourth of the reviews reported the presence of a list of excluded articles after the full-text assessment. None of the reviews reported a detailed list of excluded articles after screening of titles/abstracts. None of the reviews reported enough information to allow reproduction of the findings of the PubMed search. Conclusions There is room to improve the reporting of the methodologies that are used in reviews that support Periodontology consensus guidelines, although heterogeneity in reporting was found across all the reviews.

  • the 300 most cited articles published in Periodontology
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2017
    Co-Authors: Clovis Mariano Faggion, Lilian Malaga, Alberto Monje, Annalena Trescher, Stefan Listl, Marco Alarcon
    Abstract:

    Objectives It is important to evaluate the characteristics of the most cited articles in any specialty. The number of citations may be a proxy for clinical and research activity. The objectives of the present methodological study were (1) to report the characteristics of the 300 most cited articles in Periodontology and (2) to explore the association of these characteristics with the number of citations.

  • effect of risk of bias on the effect size of meta analytic estimates in randomized controlled trials in Periodontology and implant dentistry
    PLOS ONE, 2015
    Co-Authors: Clovis Mariano Faggion, Yunchun Wu, Moritz Scheidgen, Yukang Tu
    Abstract:

    Background Risk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists. Objective The objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Periodontology and implant dentistry. Methods A search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses of RCTs published in Periodontology and implant dentistry fields, was performed in the Cochrane Library in September 2014. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed by grouping RCTs with different levels of ROBs in three domains (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment). To increase power and precision, only SRs with meta-analyses including at least 10 RCTs were included. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the association between ROB characteristics and the magnitudes of intervention effects in the meta-analyses. Results Of the 24 initially screened SRs, 21 SRs were excluded because they did not include at least 10 RCTs in the meta-analyses. Three SRs (two from Periodontology field) generated information for conducting 27 meta-analyses. Meta-regression did not reveal significant differences in the relationship of the ROB level with the size of treatment effect estimates, although a trend for inflated estimates was observed in domains with unclear ROBs. Conclusion In this sample of RCTs, high and (mainly) unclear risks of selection and detection biases did not seem to influence the size of treatment effect estimates, although several confounders might have influenced the strength of the association.

  • is the evaluation of risk of bias in Periodontology and implant dentistry comprehensive a systematic review
    Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Clovis Mariano Faggion, Stefan Listl, Marco Alarcon
    Abstract:

    Background/Objective The objective of this study was to assess how authors of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses published in Periodontology and implant dentistry evaluate risk of bias (ROB) in primary studies included in these reviews. Material/Methods A literature search for SRs with meta-analyses was performed in PubMed and Cochrane library databases up to July 20th 2014. The reference lists of included articles were screened for further reviews. The standards of evaluating ROB in primary studies were evaluated by using a 14-item checklist based on the Cochrane approach for evaluating ROB. Standards in ROB evaluations in Cochrane and paper-based SRs were compared using the Fisher's exact test. All searches, data extraction and evaluations were performed independently and in duplicate. Results Seventy SRs were included (45 paper-based and 25 Cochrane SRs, respectively). The median percentage of items addressed was 58% (interquartile range 4–100%). Cochrane SRs more frequently included ROB assessments than paper-based reviews in terms of examiner blinding (p = 0.0026), selective outcome reporting (p = 0.0207) and other bias (p = 0.0241). Conclusions The ROB evaluation in primary studies currently included in SRs with meta-analyses in Periodontology and implant dentistry is not sufficiently comprehensive. Cochrane SRs have more comprehensive ROB evaluation than paper-based reviews.

  • use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in Periodontology and implant dentistry a systematic review
    Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Clovis Mariano Faggion, F Huda, Jason Wasiak
    Abstract:

    Objective To evaluate the methodological approaches used to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews (SRs) in Periodontology and implant dentistry. Materials & Methods Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched independently to identify SRs examining interventions published through 2 September 2013. The reference lists of included SRs and records of 10 specialty dental journals were searched manually. Methodological approaches were assessed using seven criteria based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Temporal trends in methodological quality were also explored. Results Of the 159 SRs with meta-analyses included in the analysis, 44 (28%) reported the use of domain-based tools, 15 (9%) reported the use of checklists and 7 (4%) reported the use of scales. Forty-two (26%) SRs reported use of more than one tool. Criteria were met heterogeneously; authors of 15 (9%) publications incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into SRs, whereas 69% of SRs reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. Reporting of four criteria was significantly better in recent (2010–2013) than in previous publications. Conclusion The analysis identified several methodological limitations of approaches used to assess evidence in studies included in SRs in Periodontology and implant dentistry.

Maurizio S Tonetti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • seventh european workshop on Periodontology of the european academy of Periodontology at the parador at la granja segovia spain
    Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Mariano Sanz, Niklaus P Lang, Denis F Kinane, Tord Berglundh, Iain L C Chapple, Maurizio S Tonetti
    Abstract:

    Sanz M, Lang NP, Kinane DF, Berglundh T, Chapple I, Tonetti MS. Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology of the European Academy of Periodontology at the Parador at La Granja, Segovia, Spain. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (Suppl. 11): 1–2. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01692.x.

  • quality of rcts in Periodontology a systematic review
    Journal of Dental Research, 2002
    Co-Authors: R Montenegro, Ian Needleman, David R Moles, Maurizio S Tonetti
    Abstract:

    Randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinding, and patient follow-up are key quality components of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to assess the quality of RCTs in Periodontology using these evidence-based components. Following a detailed search, screening and quality assessments of RCTs were conducted in duplicate and independently. The results showed that although 91% of trials were described as randomised, adequate methods for randomization and allocation concealment were found in 17% and 7% of studies, respectively. Blinding was adequate for the caregiver in 17% and for the examiner in 55% of studies. A clear accounting of all participants was present in 56% of reports. This rigorous systematic review revealed that the quality of RCTs in Periodontology, judged by their publications, frequently does not meet recommended standards. If this quality is reflected in actual study conduct, fundamental errors could have a significant impact on the outcomes of these trials.

  • Advances in Periodontology.
    Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners, 2000
    Co-Authors: Maurizio S Tonetti
    Abstract:

    Advances in periodontal science and practice over the last decade have radically changed the understanding of periodontal diseases and have opened new, exciting prospects for both medical and surgical therapy of periodontal diseases. Establishment of the aetiology and pathogenesis of periodontitis, understanding of the unique genetic and environmental susceptibility profile of affected subjects, and recognition of the systemic implications of periodontal infections are the key research findings. The use of randomised, controlled, clinical trials has allowed the development of evidence-based Periodontology. Adjunctive antimicrobial therapy, regenerative periodontal surgery, periodontal plastic surgery, bone regeneration surgery in the light of implant treatment, and advanced soft tissue management at implant sites have radically changed practice.

Jan Lindhe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Thorkild Karring - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.