Background: Properly designed and implemented eLearning can lead to improvement of dental teaching quality. Various strategies have been proposed to increase the effectiveness of eLearning in dental education, however, there is a lack of research to assess the effectiveness of these strategies. Objective: To investigate dental students’ learning performance and perception of a virtual flipped learning format compared to a virtual traditional learning method. Methods: A crossover pilot study was conducted at the College of Dentistry, Princes Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Computer-generated randomization, blinded from researchers who analyzed the results, was performed to allocate 32 participants (aged 23.27 ± 0.86 years) to one of two groups. Participants in the control group were taught through the virtual traditional learning method (VTL) using live video lectures. In contrast, participants in the intervention group were taught through the virtual flipped learning method (VFL) using recorded online lectures and post-lecture virtual discussions. Learning gain and preference were measured by pre- and post-test average score differences and a modified validated survey, respectively. Results: There was no significant difference in learning performance between VFL and VTL groups (P > 0.05). However, students preferred VFL over VTL and the differences were significant among all survey items, except for the opportunity to ask questions. Conclusion: Health professions educators are encouraged to carefully design online curricula with efficient learning strategies that help students improve learning performance and foster self-directed learning skills while valuing active learning in an online environment. Trial registration: NCT04692142, 31/12/2020.

Summary: Background: Pain is an unpleasant side-effect that can be experienced during orthodontic procedures including debonding of fixed appliances. Pain experience can vary depending on the appliance, debonding technique, as well as adjunctive measures used. Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of different debonding techniques and adjunctive methods on pain/discomfort perception during debonding procedure (PDP) of fixed orthodontic appliances. The secondary objective was to assess the effects of anatomic location and gender on PDP of fixed orthodontic appliances. Search methods: Multiple electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2018. Reference lists of the included articles were manually screened. Selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials were included. Data collection and analysis: Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers according to Cochrane guidelines, with disputes resolved by a third reviewer. Clinical heterogeneity in study design and methodology prevented quantitative synthesis of the data. Results: The search yielded 198 articles after the removal of duplicates. Seven studies were included in the final review with a total of 307 participants aged 12–60 years. Of the four studies comparing different debonding instruments of labial fixed appliances, two studies showed that the lift-off debonding instrument (LODI) produced lower PDP levels than ligature cutting pliers. Three studies compared adjunctive measures to reduce PDP of labial fixed appliances. Finger pressure and bite wafers significantly reduced PDP levels. Analgesics administration (ibuprofen + paracetamol tablets) 1 hour prior to debonding also reduced PDP. PDP was significantly higher in anterior segments and in females. Limitations: The authors acknowledge that there was clinical heterogeneity among the included studies and that the potential effect of diurnal variation on pain during debonding was not considered in any of the included trials. Conclusions and implications: There is weak evidence indicating that using the LODI may reduce PDP of labial fixed appliances. Adjunctive measures such as an intrusive force with finger pressure, bite wafers, and preoperative analgesia may further aid PDP control. Further well-designed parallel-group RCTs taking into consideration the diurnal variation in pain are required. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017084474). Funding: None. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Background: Data from the systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, form the basis of evidence-based medicine. Therefore, these studies should be conducted and reported according to the mandatory Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This study evaluated compliance with the PRISMA guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews in three major periodontology journals. Material and Methods: A hand search was conducted in three major periodontal journals to identify Systematic Reviews (SRs) published between January 2018 and July 2022 using the words “Systematic Review” or “meta-analysis” in the title, abstract, or methodology of an article. The PRISMA statement checklist was used to evaluate eligible SRs, covering various sections of the review process. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analyses, and inter-examiner and intra-examiner reliability assessments were conducted for data analysis. Results: A total of 87 SRs with meta-analyses were included in the current study. The proportion of published systematic reviews during the investigation period was 5.7% of the total published articles. 16 items were reported adequately in less than 75% of the included papers. Notably, items such as abstracts, data items, sensitivity analysis methods, synthesis results, reporting biases, evidence certainty, registration and protocol, data, code, and other materials availability were reported inadequately in some reviews. Conclusion: The findings from this study support previous research demonstrating that compliance with the PRISMA guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews can vary, potentially attributing to a lack of understanding regarding these guidelines and their clinical significance.

Root morphology and canal anatomy of maxillary molars shows several complexities and variations. Knowledge of these is essential for successful endodontic treatment. This study aimed to investigate the morphology of the maxillary second molars in a Saudi Arabian sub-population in relation to gender, age, and nationality, as well as to analyze the anatomical symmetry between the left and right side in each individual. 420 digitized cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were collected, of which 351 scans met the inclusion criteria. Number of roots and canals at three different levels of the root in each case was counted at all available sides and compared on the basis of the study variables. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. Most of the patients (n = 323, 92%) had three roots, while two roots (n = 23, 6.6%), four roots (n = 4, 1.1%), and one root (n = 1, 0.3%) were less frequently observed. A significant correlation between female patients and the presence of two canals, while male patients showed a higher correlation with the presence of four canals at all levels. There also was a correlation between Saudi participants and the presence of four canals at all levels. No significant correlation in symmetry between the left and right side root canal anatomy was found. There was an inverse relation between the number of canals and age. Considering the limitations in this study, it appears that the Saudi population is more likely to have three- and two-rooted maxillary second molars, with males and females showing greater tendencies to having three and two roots, respectively.

To provide data from the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) national clinical audit on temporary anchorage device (TAD) use following the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NIHCE) The Audit commenced on 1 January 2008 and is still ongoing. This article reports the data for TADs placed from 1 January 2008 to 1 November 2013. Audit data was collected from participants using a system of both on-line data entry and hard copy forms. The criteria and standards for the audit were set following the NIHCE report in conjunction with the Development and Standards Committee of the BOS. Virtually all participants used the on-line data entry available on the BOS website. The data submitted was checked and entered manually into an Excel spreadsheet, and transferred to SPSS for analysis. Written information and documented discussion of risks were provided in over 90% of TADs placed, but 17.4% were placed without a specific signed consent form. Temporary anchorage device failure rate was 24.2% overall. Among failed TADs, 93.1% were lost or removed due to excess mobility. Infection or inflammation resulting in loss or removal was reported in 6% of TADs. The only audit standard that was met was failures due to infection of inflammation. The rest of the audit standards were not met. Recommendations are made to address these issues.

The aim of this study is to provide an update as to whether authors in the orthodontic field of research currently report randomized clinical trials (RCTs) adequately as defined by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO), Journal of Orthodontics (JO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO) and Angle Orthodontist (AO) were reviewed to identify all articles that reported RCTs published between January 2008 and June 2012.Reports were scored using the CONSORT 37 item checklist. A 10% random sample of the papers was scored by a second examiner to assess inter-examiner reliability of the CONSORT score. Another 10% random sample of the papers was scored a second time by the first examiner 3 months after initial data collection to test intra-examiner reliability. A total of 151 clinical trial reports have been identified out of 3335 articles in the four journals from January 2008 to June 2012.Mean CONSORT score of the four journals was 51.7%. Journal of Orthodontics achieved the highest score of 73.6% and the lowest score was achieved by AO with a score of 44.5%. Overall compliance with CONSORT increased from 47.8 to 56.3% between 2008 and 2012. Clinical trials reports represented < 5% of articles in the four main orthodontic journals between 2008 and 2012. • CONSORT mean score ranged from 44.5 to 73.6% between journals. • CONSORT mean score increased through the period of investigation.