Systematic and scoping reviews to assess biological parameters

Abstract

Introduction: An evidence synthesis approach compiling biological/laboratory data is effective in advancing health-related knowledge. However, this approach is still underused in the oral health field.Methods: This commentary discusses the opportunities and challenges of systematic and scoping reviews of laboratory data in dentistry. Special focus is on the potential of these reviews to elucidate etiological and treatment concepts of oral diseases, such as periodontitis and peri-implantitis. Results:The following difficulties associated with such studies are discussed: (i) selection of ideal study design, (ii) assessment of "risk of bias" and definition of "certainty of evidence", (iii) evidence assembly and summary, and (iv) the paper review process.Discussion: Despite those challenges, high-quality reviews integrating laboratory data may generate relevant scientific information and help identify new avenues for future investigations. Experts in different oral health topics should build a process capable of helping researchers assemble and interpret these types of data.

Effect of non‐surgical periodontal therapy on salivary histone deacetylases expression: A prospective clinical study

“…Our study stratified non-responders based on the treat-to-target clinical endpoint for periodontal trials recently proposed by Feres et al (2020); however, it must be mentioned that there is no universal consensus on what defines a non-responder. Overall, there were no significant differences in HDAC expression between non-responders and responders at any time point, despite a slight trend towards significance for HDAC2 at 6 months.…”

“…Moreover, this lack of significance may also be attributed to the small sample size of both subgroups, limiting the detection of any meaningful differences, and decreasing the statistical robustness, which is to be acknowledged as a notable limitation in this study. Furthermore, the case definition adopted by Feres et al (2020) has been proposed for use as an objective outcome measure in clinical trials, but this may not be truly reflective in identifying a non-responder in daily clinical practice.…”

Unraveling the effectiveness of antibiotics for peri‐implantitis treatment: A scoping review

“…We have recently highlighted that the scoping reviews assessing laboratory data are useful scientific tools still underused in dentistry. These studies, such as the present one, can help to establish concepts about the etiology and treatment of different periodontal and implant conditions 85 . In order to accomplish our main goal of “supporting evidence‐based clinical recommendations,” Figure 4 provides a decision tree for peri‐implantitis treatment based on the authors' overall interpretation of the data presented and discussed in this scoping review.…”

“…These studies, such as the present one, can help to establish concepts about the etiology and treatment of different periodontal and implant conditions. 85 In order to accomplish our main goal of "supporting evidence-based clinical recommendations," Figure 4 provides a decision tree for peri-implantitis treatment based on the authors' overall interpretation of the data presented and discussed in this scoping review. Another strength of this review was to provide a comprehensive discussion on the use of biomedical engineering to test antibiotic-loaded dental implant biomaterials.…”

Comparing the Long-Term Success Rates of Tooth Preservation and Dental Implants: A Critical Review

“…In this way, it is essential that a correct “endpoint” is determined, so that a treatment can be considered successful. A recent publication observed that a clinical endpoint of ≤4 sites with PD ≥ 5 mm is effective in determining disease remission/control after active periodontal treatment [ 100 ].…”