No abstract

BackgroundSmoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and tooth loss. Smoking cessation has a positive impact in periodontal treatment. However, so far, no systematic review has evaluated the effect of smoking cessation on tooth loss. Therefore, this review aimed to evaluate if smoking cessation reduces the risk of tooth loss.MethodsObservational (cross-sectional and longitudinal) studies that investigated the association between smoking cessation and tooth loss were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Pooled results for subgroups of current and former smokers were compared in meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to test the influence of smoking status on estimates and explore the heterogeneity.ResultsOf 230 potentially relevant publications, 21 studies were included in the qualitative review and 12 in the quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies did not show any differences between former and current smokers in the chance of losing 1 or more teeth (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.24, I2 = 80%), losing more than 8 teeth (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.32, I2 = 0%) or being edentulous (OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.99, I2 = 98%). Meta-analysis from longitudinal studies showed that, when compared to never smokers, former smokers presented no increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.35, I2 = 76%), while current smokers presented an increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 2.60; 95% CI = 2.29 to 2.96, I2 = 61%). Meta-regression showed that, among former smokers, the time of cessation was the variable that better explained heterogeneity (approximately 60%).ConclusionsRisk for tooth loss in former smokers is comparable to that of never smokers. Moreover, former smokers have a reduced risk of tooth loss, when compared to current smokers.

Aim: Selective outcome reporting (SOR) is a type of bias that occurs when the primary outcome of a trial protocol is changed or omitted in the paper. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of SOR in publications of randomized clinical trials (RCT) concerning dental implants. Materials and Methods:Two reviewers independently screened protocols registered at ClinicalTrials.gov until February/2019. If the protocol met the eligibility criteria, the reviewers tried to identify the corresponding publication. Data extraction was carried out by the same reviewers. Primary and secondary outcomes were recorded for each trial and compared to outcomes previously described in protocols. Results:A total of 49 protocols were included. SOR was identified in 27 (55.1%) trials.The major discrepancies were as follows: protocol-defined primary outcome omitted in the publication (n = 6, 12.2%), new primary outcome introduced (n = 8, 16.3%), discrepancy in the primary outcome time frame (n = 17, 34.7%) and new secondary outcome introduced (n = 31, 63.3%). SOR was significantly associated with industry funding (p = 0.04) and timing of registration (p = 0.04). Conclusions:Our results indicate a high rate of SOR in dental implants clinical trials.Use of registry data during the peer-review process may help decreasing SOR. K E Y W O R D S dental implant, randomized clinical trials, selective reporting | 759 SENDYK Et al. S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Sendyk DI, Rovai ES, Souza NV, Deboni MCZ, Pannuti CM. Selective outcome reporting in randomized clinical trials of dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:758-765. https ://doi.

In patients with DM and CP, use of local antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP may result in additional benefits compared with SRP alone in PD reduction and CAL gain, especially in well-controlled individuals and deep sites.