Full publication of abstracts presented at scientific meetings ranges from 25-74%. To determine the rate and factors associated with publication in organ transplantation, we examined abstracts presented at the American Transplant Congress in May 2000. Of 1147 abstracts, 607 (53%) achieved full publication at 4.5 years (mean 1.32 ± 0.88 years). Fifty-nine percent (357/607) were published in three transplantation journals. For randomized trials, the proportion published was 61%. On multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.04-3.06), basic science research (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.32-2.14), non-American center (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.28-2.20) and oral presentation (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.73) were independent predictors of full publication. Nearly half of all abstracts presented at a transplantation meeting remain unpublished. This finding needs to be considered when interpreting systematic reviews in the field of transplantation.

This study was undertaken to estimate the prevalence and severity of tooth wear (TW), as well as to assess non-biological and biological risk indicators for TW outcomes in adults. A cross-sectional study, adhering to the reporting STROBE guidelines, was conducted and had a convenience sample of adults ≥18 years of age who had at least one bilateral posterior molar contact. A total of 570 participants, seeking consultation at the University Hospital in Brussels, Belgium, were allocated to three age groups: 18–34 years (<i>n</i> = 232), 35–54 years (<i>n</i> = 256), and ≥55 years old (<i>n</i> = 79). Participants answered a self-applied questionnaire regarding sociodemographics, oral hygiene, and lifestyle behavior. The questionnaire was tested-retested (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.71). Inter-examiner reliability for clinical examinations was <i>k</i> = 0.76–0.80. The prevalence of TW was 75% (95% CI: 71.7–78.9). Out of these patients, 42% (95% CI: 38.0–46.3) had as the primary etiological factor the process of dental erosion, while 22% (95% CI: 18.9–25.9) and 11% (95% CI: 8.6–13.9) had the processes of dental attrition and dental abrasion, respectively. The severity of TW according to BEWE highest score was mild in 31%, moderate in 28%, and severe in 17% of participants. The hierarchical logistic regression model for the association between risk indicators and TW irrespective of the etiology was significant for age (&#x3e;35–54 years: OR = 2.35 and ≥55 years: OR = 3.89; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), gender (&#x3e;male: OR = 2.03; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), toothpaste (&#x3e;sensitive teeth: OR = 2.34; <i>p</i> = 0.005), occlusal splint (&#x3e;yes: OR = 1.62; <i>p</i> = 0.03), and acidic beverages (≥once per day: OR = 1.62; <i>p</i> = 0.044). Consumption of acidic beverages was not associated with TW having as the primary etiological factor the process of dental attrition or dental abrasion, while it was significantly associated with the process of dental erosion (&#x3e;once per week: OR = 1.69; <i>p</i> = 0.043 and ≥once per day: OR = 1.73; <i>p</i> = 0.016). Medical conditions were equally associated with the latter (OR = 3.11; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). These findings could contribute to improving the effectiveness and sustainability of awareness in contemporary adult populations. In conclusion, the prevalence and severity of TW in adults were substantial. Medical conditions and consumption of acidic beverages were risk indicators for TW having as the primary etiological factor the process of dental erosion, although associations were moderate and weak, respectively.

No abstract

This survey assessed the use of current concepts for tooth wear diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment decisions in daily practice, and identified factors of significance for treatment decisions. A total of 104 dentists were presented with 10 cases representing varying degrees of tooth wear. The dentists were asked to answer six questions pertaining to the diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of each case. A benchmark was established by three experts and the agreement between dentists and the benchmark was calculated. At dentition level, the agreement was moderate for diagnosis (κ = 0.55) and risk assessment (κ = 0.54). At tooth/surface level, the agreement for clinical and radiographic severity of wear was moderate (κ = 0.57) and substantial (κ = 0.65), respectively. The agreement for treatment decision was fair (κ = 0.35). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that treatment decisions for operative treatment were associated with moderate to high case risk (OR = 10.1; 95% CI: 5.4–18.9). Belgian dentists performed reasonably well in applying current concepts and strategies for tooth wear diagnosis and risk assessments at dentition level, as well as for assessment of wear severity at tooth/surface level. Improvement is warranted concerning treatment decisions. This survey could be a useful tool for disseminating and improving current knowledge of tooth wear, and for training dentists in daily practice.

This study explored the application of a model for teaching tooth wear diagnosis, risk assessment and treatment decisions to undergraduates at the UCLouvain, Belgium, based on inverted classroom combined with case presentations. The aim was to explain its implementation and assess improvement in learning, engagement and satisfaction. The hypothesis tested was that this model would enhance students’ performance. This controlled clinical trial included 29 dental students in the test group and 30 in the control group. All students received instructions and pre-class material for reading via e-mail two weeks prior to class time (T0). The test group included students attending the class time (attendance was not obligatory). The control group consisted of students only attending the pre-clinical training (attendance was obligatory). Both groups assessed case three presentations with no, moderate and severe erosive tooth wear. The test group assessed the cases at the beginning of the class time (T1). One week later, at the beginning of the pre-clinical training, the students of the control group assessed the case presentations (T2). In parallel, to measure the contribution of the class time to students‘ performance, the test group re-assessed the cases (T2). This was followed by discussion of each case in which the lecturer presented the benchmark assessments. Students’ perception of their learning experience was recorded. The generalized linear mixed regression model showed that for the overall assessments of cases, students in the control group were significantly less likely to agree with the benchmark than students in the test group (OR=0.62; p=0.006). Students’ satisfaction was higher in the test group than the control group, but only significantly regarding the quality of the cases presentations (Fisher test p<0.01). The class time contributed significantly to students’ improvement in learning in the test group (liner mixed model; p<0.01). In conclusion, the model applied improved significantly performance, learning and to some extent satisfaction. However, the motivation strategy applied resulted in only half of the students adhering/engaging to the complete interactive model of teaching. Further motivation strategies should be implemented to make the complete model more widely accepted by students.