Minimizing risk of bias in clinical implant research study design

Abstract

The field of clinical implant research has been flourishing in recent years. The number of related publications has been on the rise, as has the number of dental journals. However, the information gathered from surveillance studies on the quality of reporting and methodologic quality of published studies is unsettling. An important challenge faced by researchers endeavoring to conduct implant studies is how to factor the differences between implant surfaces and dental surfaces in the study design. Given the considerable experience that has been gained in the research methodology of the study of teeth and periodontal tissues, clinical implant research studies have often been conducted without giving much consideration to the fundamental differences between implants and teeth. This article discusses study design related to implant research in view of these differences. Observational and interventional study design methodology is discussed, and guidelines are provided to inform researchers on how to minimize bias in the design and implementation of these clinical studies when implant‐related outcomes are studied.

Retrospective analysis of the long‐term effect of subgingival air polishing in supportive periodontal therapy

“…In addition, due to the fact that therapy and measurements were performed within a routine clinical setting, the risk of not reporting facts or selective reporting of results might be considered low. This is even more plausible since the study was not financed by a third party (Kotsakis et al (2019), Page et al, 2018).…”

Boron- and Boric Acid-Treated Titanium Implant Surfaces in Sheep Tibia: A Histologic, Histomorphometric and Mechanical Study

“…It should be emphasized that the implants on the sheep tibia may not appropriately represent the outcomes in the human jaw bone due to the biologic and topographic differences [ 27 ]. Owing to the regulation of the ethical committee, the unit of the statistical calculations was the implant, but a subject-based calculation might yield different outcomes due to the clustering of multiple implants on the same sheep [ 35 ]. The sustainability of the B element on the implants following surgical insertion and healing should also be analyzed in further studies.…”