Overview of systematic reviews on periodontal‐orthodontic interactions: A comprehensive literature analysis

Abstract

AbstractThe aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal–orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal–orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR‐2 tool (the acronym is derived from ‘a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews’) to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR‐2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR‐2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta‐analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR‐2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal–orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched.