Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the gold standard for evaluating treatment intervention. If not properly controlled, bias in the design of trial methodology can affect the validity of study results. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the methodological quality of RCTs published on implant dentistry over a ten-year period. Methods: A Medline search was conducted for RCTs using keywords dental implant and publication type randomized controlled trial. To be considered RCTs, trials had to involve human subjects, include at least 2 treatment groups, and have treatment allocated by randomization. Three dimensions of trial methodology were assessed: control of bias at entry, control of bias after entry, and control of bias in assessment of outcome. Frequencies were calculated for each dimension of trial methodology and overall quality scores of the RCTs. Results: Seventy articles were retrieved from Medline and 67 were available for evaluation. Forty three articles met criteria for classification as RCT (precision = .64). The method of randomization was explicit in 81% of the RCTs, but only 16% incorporated blinding in the assessment of outcome. Ninety eight percent accounted for all subjects at the end of the study. Overall quality scores revealed that only 9% of RCTs attempted to control bias in the 3 areas examined, while 77% percent were deficient in 1 area, and 14% were deficient in two areas. Conclusion: Overall, bias was better controlled in RCTs published on implant dentistry compared to all RCTs published in prosthodontic journals over a similar time period. The low percentage of blinding reflects practical problems inherent in the type of intervention being evaluated.

Back to the Implantology Research Program
Back to the 81st General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (June 25-28, 2003)

Top Level Search