Objective To investigate the incidence and time taken to full publication of abstracts presented at dental scientific meetings. Design A retrospective observational study. Setting All abstracts from the 1993 proceedings of the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and a 10% random sample of abstracts from the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) conferences. Methods A cross-referenced Medline search of abstract title and authors was undertaken to determine whether abstracts had been published as full papers. Searches were censored 1 year prior to and 5 years post publication as an abstract. Publication rate was compared between abstracts presented orally and as posters. Main outcome measures Publication as a full paper and time taken to publication. Results 546 abstracts were investigated. 252 abstracts (46.1%) were found as full reports. Median time to publication of all abstracts was 18 months (IQR 9, 30 months). 99 of the oral abstracts (57%) and 153 (41%) of the poster abstracts were published. Relative Risk Oral vs Poster = 1.37 CI (1.19, 1.55). Conclusion More than half of the research presented at EOS, IADR and ORCA in 1993 remained unpublished 5 years after presentation at the conference. Oral presentations were published more frequently than poster presentations.

Objective: To determine patient experience of pain during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances, expectations of pain during debond and whether biting on a soft acrylic wafer during debond decreases pain experience.Design: Multicentre randomized controlled trial.Setting: Three UK hospital based orthodontic departments: Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham Dental Hospital and University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Materials and methods:Ninety patients were randomly allocated to either the control (n545) or wafer group (n545). A visual analogue scale-based questionnaire was completed pre-debond to determine pain experience during treatment and expectations of pain during debond. The appliances were debonded and those in the wafer group bit on a soft acrylic wafer. A second questionnaire was completed post-debond to assess the pain experienced.Results: Biting on an acrylic wafer significantly reduced the pain experienced when debonding the posterior teeth (P#0.05). Thirty-nine per cent found the lower anterior teeth the most painful. The expected pain was significantly greater than that actually experienced (P#0.0001). Greater pain during treatment correlated with increased expectations and increased actually experienced pain (P#0.0001).Conclusions: Biting on a soft acrylic wafer during debond of the posterior teeth reduces the pain experienced. The lower anterior teeth are the most painful. The pain expected is significantly greater than actually experienced. Patients who had greater pain during treatment expected and experienced greater pain at debond.

With the development of evidence-based dentistry it is important to consider how accurate and representative our published pool of evidence is. In this article we will describe publication bias and discuss the causes and potential effects it may have upon the pool of scientific evidence available in dentistry.

This audit highlights a need for increased training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels to update practitioners about contemporary retention practice. Better communication is required from orthodontists to GDPs to ensure that on discharge the dentist is aware of the retainer type and retention regime.

This paper illustrates an innovation in oral retraction developed for use in general dentistry. The benefits for use in orthodontic bonding are described.