Search

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) with traditional learning in prosthodontic education. Methods: The protocol was registered before commencement [CRD42023390277]. The search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on comparative assessment of TEL and traditional learning in prosthodontic education up to 6 June 2024. A comprehensive search strategy was formulated, encompassing multiple electronic databases. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2) were performed. Educational outcomes were evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four‐level evaluation model. Results: Of 2830 records identified, 14 RCTs were included. All the trials were judged at high risk of bias or had some concerns. The included studies assessed the short‐term benefits of various TEL approaches, including e‐learning, blended learning, video demonstration specialized self‐evaluation software and virtual reality simulation in prosthodontic education for undergraduates. Promising results were found in individual studies, particularly in terms of perceived learning conditions with problem‐based learning (PBL) and self‐reported understanding and confidence when using video demonstrations. Most studies reported comparable outcomes to traditional learning in practical skills assessments, while the results regarding the acquisition of theoretical knowledge through the incorporation of TEL approaches were contradictory. One study reported promising results in perceived learning conditions with the PBL approach, as well as improved self‐reported understanding and confidence with the use of video demonstrations. Furthermore, there was a limited number of studies assessing the effect of TEL approaches on students' behaviour. Conclusion: There is a lack of high‐quality evidence to support the adoption of TEL approaches in prosthodontics. However, the incorporation of virtual reality simulation has demonstrated promising results, particularly in improving practical clinical skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. Methods An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January–31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. Results A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P  < .001). Limitations The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. Conclusions The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the prescription of orthodontic retainers, highlighting the prevalent practice of blanket prescription rather than tailoring retention protocols based on malocclusion characteristics. Topics include preferences for retainer types and materials, the influence of orthodontic presentation on retention protocols, and limited awareness of clear plastic retainer options and dimensions among orthodontists.

To scrutinize claims contained within Instagram posts related to six popular marketed orthodontic products. Three hundred publicly available Instagram posts were identified using the following Instagram hashtags: #carrieremotion, #damonbraces, #invisalign, #acceledent, #propelorthodontics, and #myobrace. Pilot coding was undertaken on a subset of claims (n = 50) and a coding guide was developed. The associated claims were categorized under 24 recognized themes and their accuracy assessed on a five-point scale. Of 1730 posts screened, 300 were included for analysis. The majority of posts were based on photographs (n = 244, 81.3%) with the remainder (n = 56, 18.7%) including videos. Half of the posts involved a picture of the product in isolation (n = 150, 50%), with clinical cases presented in a minority (n = 99, 33%). Overall, 472 claims were included with treatment duration being the most frequent theme (n = 125, 26.5%). In terms of accuracy, most of the claims were judged to be "false" (n = 283, 60%) with less than 2% considered "objectively true." Most of the claims relating to six popular marketed orthodontic products concerned treatment duration. The vast majority of these claims were not supported by evidence and were judged to be false. Efforts should be made to promote the provision of accurate orthodontic information and to verify marketing claims on social media platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The 'My Retainers' mobile application is a patient-informed intervention designed to enhance removable retainer wear and associated patient experiences during the retention phase. Objectives To evaluate the effect of receiving the 'My Retainers' application on objectively assessed thermoplastic retainer (TPR) wear time, stability, periodontal outcomes, patient experiences, and knowledge related to retainers. Materials and methods Eighty-four participants planned for removable retention with TPRs were assigned either to receive the 'My Retainers' application or to control not receiving electronic reminders during the 3-month period. Randomization was based on computer-generated random numbers and allocation was concealed using opaque, sealed envelopes. The primary outcome was objectively assessed retainer wear recorded using an embedded TheraMon® micro-electronic sensor. Secondary outcomes, including irregularity of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, plaque levels, bleeding on probing and probing depth, were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up; and analysed using a series of mixed models. Experiences and knowledge related to orthodontic retainers were recorded using questionnaires. The outcome assessor was blinded when possible. Results Receipt of the mobile application resulted in slightly higher median wear time (0.91 hours/day); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.19, 4.01). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups in terms of stability (P = 0.92; 95% CI: −0.03, 0.04), plaque levels (P = 0.44; 95% CI: −0.07, 0.03), bleeding on probing (P = 0.61; 95% CI: −0.05, 0.03) and probing depth (P = 0.79; 95% CI: −0.09, 0.07). Furthermore, similar levels of patient experiences (P = 0.94) and knowledge related to retainers (P = 0.26) were found. However, marginally better levels of knowledge were identified in the intervention group. No harms were observed. Limitations A relatively short follow-up period with the study confined to a single-center in a university-based hospital. Conclusions Provision of the bespoke 'My Retainers' application did not lead to an improvement in adherence with TPR wear over a 3-month follow-up period. Further refinement and research are required to develop and investigate means of enhancing adherence levels. Clinical registration NCT03224481. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]