Search

Objective: To evaluate whether individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) are more affected by malocclusion than individuals without OI. Materials and Methods: Searches in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and gray literature were performed. Data extraction was conducted by two researchers. Risk of bias assessment employing the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and meta‐analysis were conducted. Results were provided with mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Strength of evidence was determined. Results: Six cross‐sectional studies were included. In comparison with individuals without OI, the group with OI had 19.69‐fold greater chance of exhibiting Angle Class III malocclusion (OR = 19.69, CI: 9.00–43.09) and presenting anterior crossbite greater (MD = 6.08, CI: 2.40–9.77). Individuals without OI had a significantly greater ANB angle (MD = 3.88, CI: 1.15–6.61) and SNA angle (MD = 2.11, CI: 0.24–3.98) in comparison with those with OI. No difference between groups was found for SNB (MD = −0.50, CI: −2.21 to 1.21) and open bite (MD = 0.98, CI: −0.29 to 2.25). Most studies included had moderate methodological quality. Strength of evidence was low or very low. Conclusions: The occurrence of Angle Class III malocclusion and anterior crossbite was greater among individuals with OI compared to those without OI. These findings can assist stakeholders about the occlusal abnormalities affecting OI individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify factors associated with oral health care services for individuals with and without rare genetic diseases. Materials and Method: A cross‐sectional study was undertaken, with 140 individuals paired by sex and age (70 with rare genetic diseases and 70 without), aged between 3 and 27 years, and their parents. The sample was selected from two reference hospitals for patients with rare genetic diseases in southeastern Brazil. The parents completed a questionnaire on individual aspects and their child's medical/dental history. Participants who did and did not suffer from rare genetic diseases were examined for dental caries, malocclusion, dental anomalies, and oral hygiene. The theoretical model Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) was used to identify possible confounding variables in the association between rare diseases and access to dental care. Descriptive analyses and non‐matched and matched logistic regression models (p < 0.05) were carried out. Results: The chance of individuals without rare genetic disease having access to oral health care service was 5.32 times higher (95% CI 2.35–12.01) than those with such conditions. Individuals who had not suffered upper respiratory tract infections had a 3.16 times greater chance of being in the group with access to oral health care service (95% CI 1.45–6.90). Conclusion: Individuals with no rare genetic diseases and no history of upper respiratory tract infections had a greater chance of belonging to the group of individuals with access to a dental service. Individuals with rare genetic diseases have less access to oral health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies. Methods. The authors evaluated 87 journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters). The authors extracted information regarding the journals from the Journal Citation Reports database and from the instructions for authors of each journal. The authors conducted bivariate analysis to compare the methodological policy issues of journals with higher and those with lower impact factors (≥ 1.452 and ≤ 1.436, respectively). Results. Among journals, 44 (50.6%) required the use of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 22 (25.3%) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 21 (24.1%) Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 17 (19.5%) STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology, 6 (6.9%) Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, 3 (3.4%) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and 1 (1.1%) Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. No journals required STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. Journals with higher impact factors had more instructions related to the peer review process (P = .027), redundant publication (P < .001), authorship policy (P = .024), contributorship policy (P < .001), ethical conduct of biomedical research with human participants (P = .021), ethical conduct of biomedical research with nonhuman participants (P = .001), registration of clinical trials (P = .004), and conflicts involving editors as authors in their own journals (P < .001) than did journals with lower impact factors. The submission of clinical case studies was significantly more prevalent in journals with lower impact factors (P = .008). Conclusions. Journals with higher impact factors have more rules regarding publication policies. Practical Implications. Journals with higher impact factors are stricter regarding publication policies than are journals with lower impact factors. Authors should be careful with the instructions for authors and plan studies with high methodological quality to publish their studies in a scientific journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]