The reporting and methodological quality of split‐mouth trials in oral implantology: A methodological study

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy in clinical research (Concato et al., 2000).Clinicians are more likely to make clinical decisions based on RCTs' results than observational studies, as RCTs can minimise known and unknown confounders while other study designs cannot. Therefore, researchers need to ensure that RCTs are conducted well and reported transparently.It is well-documented that the reporting and methodology of RCTs in oral implantology were poor (Cairo et al., 2012;. To guide the conduct and improve the

Bone density and implant stability with advanced platelet-rich fibrin in immediately loaded- implant assisted mandibular overdentures

“…However, it was found that due to the mechanical connection of the two implants of different intervention Groups by superstructures, loads on one implant would be transferred to the other; which may result in carry-across effects. Carry-across effects on results cannot be tested or assessed [26].…”

Is clustering accounted for in studies published in periodontology and oral implantology specialty journals?

“…In a split-mouth study design, quadrants within the oral cavity or each jaw are randomly allocated to receive either the treatment intervention or comparator within the same individual. [4][5][6] Advantages of this design include a reduction in the observed interindividual treatment effect variability and a reduced sample size. 4,7 Conversely, a disadvantage is the potential for carry-across effects which can bias the treatment estimates.…”

“…Additionally, several periodontal assessments taken within the same quadrant of an individual can be considered as a cluster as they represent a collection of measurements belonging to the same subject. In a split‐mouth study design, quadrants within the oral cavity or each jaw are randomly allocated to receive either the treatment intervention or comparator within the same individual 4–6 . Advantages of this design include a reduction in the observed interindividual treatment effect variability and a reduced sample size 4,7 .…”