Objectives: The issue of reporting conflicts of interest (COI) in medical research has come under scrutiny over the past decade. Absolute transparency is important when dealing with conflicts of interest to provide readers with all essential information required to make an informative decision of the results. The key objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of reporting conflicts of interest in therapeutic dental meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), and to investigate possible associations with other categorical variables. Study Design: We conducted an extensive literature search across multiple databases to search for relevant review articles for this study. We utilized pre-determined key words, and relied on three reviewers to test and review the use of a data extraction form that was used for the meta-analyses. Data regarding study characteristics, direction of results, and the significance of the results from each meta-analysis were extracted. Results: There were 129 meta-analyses used in this review, and the reporting on conflict of interest was low with only 50 (38.8%) of the articles possessing a conflict of interest statement (either confirming of denying COI). Of these 50 articles, there were only 4 (8%) studies that reported an actual conflict of interest. A statement of conflicts of interest was found in 29 (35.3%) of the papers that reported significant findings, whereas 35% of the papers that reported positive results reported on conflict of interest. Prior to 2009, only 17 (25%) papers reported conflicts of interest, but since 2009, 54.1% of papers collected had a conflict of interest statement. Conclusions: Meta-analyses published in the field of dentistry do not routinely report author conflicts of interest. Although few conflicts appear to exist, the field of dentistry should continue to ensure that best evidence reports provide clear and transparent reporting of potential conflicts of interest in academic journals. Key words:Dentistry, dentition, meta-analysis, quantitative review.

We investigated the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the KineSpring System in the Spanish healthcare system, as compared to other standard treatments methods. Cost-utility ratios were calculated using derived cost data and we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for each method of treatment. Cost-utility ratios were calculated assuming lifetime and 10-year durability. Assuming lifetime durability, cost-utility ratios of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), high tibial osteotomy (HTO), KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €2348 ± 70/QALYs, €2040 ± 61/QALYs, €2281 ± 68/ QALY, €1669 ± 268/QALYs, and €11,688 ± 2185/QALYs, respectively. Assuming a treatment durability of 10 years, the cost-utility ratio of TKA, UKA, HTO, KineSpring System, and conservative treatments, compared to no treatment, are €4884 ± 323/QALYs, €4243 ± 280/QALYs, €4744 ± 313/QALYs, €3757 ± 1353/QALYs, and €10,575 ± 4414/QALYs, respectively. In comparison to current standard-of-care treatments, the KineSpring System has a favorable cost-utility ratio, making it an effective treatment option and a suitable cost-saving alternative. The KineSpring System is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs.