Are Most of the Published Clinical Trial Results in Restorative Dentistry Invalid? An Empirical Investigation

Author(s): Steffen Mickenautsch*

Journal Name: Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials

Volume 15 , Issue 2 , 2020

Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Background: To establish the number of invalid clinical trial reports in restorative dentistry, due to lack of effective randomisation and/or inadequate sample size and whether this number changed, during the 1990-2019 period.

Methods: Databases were searched up to 14 July 2019 without limitations regarding publication language. A Journal hand search and reference check were conducted for trial reports. Selection criteria were: reporting on a prospective, controlled clinical trial; relevance to placing direct tooth restorations in human vital teeth; direct comparison between restorative materials concerning tooth restoration longevity; trial report published from 1990. Randomisation reported (Yes/No) and treatment group sample size ≥ 200 were applied as criteria, using the deductive falsification approach for trial report appraisal.

Results: 683 trial reports were appraised. 660 lacked effective randomisation. Of the remaining 23 reports, only 2 included a sample size of more than 200 restored teeth (mean number per treatment group 87; Standard deviation = 108.51). 92.5% of all treatment groups had a sample size of < 200. Randomisation reporting increased and sample size remained essentially unchanged between 1990 and 2019.

Conclusion: Most of the published clinical trial results in restorative dentistry were judged invalid, due to lack of effective randomisation and adequate sample size. These results are in line with previous findings. Evidence-based recommendations on how to improve trial methodology are available in the dental/medical literature.

Keywords: Clinical trial, deductive falsification approach, dental/medical literature, restorative dentistry, trial appraisal, trial methodology.

Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2(8) e124
[] [PMID: 16060722]
Berger VW. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomised clinical trials. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2005.
Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll MD. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med 2003; 22(19): 3017-28.
[] [PMID: 12973784]
Mickenautsch S, Bo F. Testing for second-order selection bias effect in randomised controlled trials using reverse propensity score (RPS) Randomization, Masking, and Allocation concealment. CRC Press Boca Raton 2018; p. 141.
Mickenautsch S, Berger VW. The role of the randomised controlled trial in restorative dentistry and the correct purpose of observational data. Br Dent J 2019; 226: 95-7.
[] [PMID: 30655617]
Berger VW. What do non-randomized trials offer above and beyond randomized trials? Contemp Clin Trials 2013; 35(1): 168-9.
[] [PMID: 23545076]
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Direct contra naïve-indirect comparison of clinical failure rates between high-viscosity GIC and conventional amalgam restorations: An empirical study. PLoS One 2013; 8(10) e78397
[] [PMID: 24205220]
Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist GE, Timmer A, et al. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 4(4) MR000012
[] [PMID: 21491415]
Pocock SJ. Clinical trials A practical approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1988; pp. 126-34.
Geigy Scientific tables. 7th ed. Basle: Geigy 1970; p. 28.
Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299(13): 690-4.
[] [PMID: 355881]
Google. Google Translate [Online] 2019. Available from:.
Mickenautsch S. Is the deductive falsification approach a better basis for clinical trial appraisal? Rev Recent Clin Trials 2019; 14(3): 224-8.
[] [PMID: 30868960]
Goodman S, Greenland S. Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Med 2007; 4(4) e168
[] [PMID: 17456002]
Ashton JC. It has not been proven why or that most research findings are false. Med Hypotheses 2018; 113: 27-9.
[] [PMID: 29523288]
Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005; 294(2): 218-28.
[] [PMID: 16014596]
Burke FT. End of the road for the randomized controlled trial in restorative dentistry? Dent Update 2017; 44: 806-8.
American Dental Association. Council on Scientific Affairs Acceptance Program Guidelines for Resin-based Composites for Posterior Restorations. Chicago: ADA 2001.
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Do laboratory results concerning high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus amalgam for tooth restorations indicate similar effect direction and magnitude than that of controlled clinical trials?-A Meta-Epidemiological Study. PLoS One 2015; 10(7) e0132246
[] [PMID: 26168274]
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Reports of uncontrolled clinical trials for directly placed restorations in vital teeth. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31 e48
[] [PMID: 28678967]
Sutherland SE. Evidence-based dentistry: Part IV. Research design and levels of evidence. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67(7): 375-8.
[PMID: 11468093]
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
[] [PMID: 22008217]
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(4): 383-94.
[] [PMID: 21195583]
Pinto VF. Non-inferiority clinical trials: Concepts and issues. J Vasc Bras 2010; 9: 145-51.
Teuscher N. Trial designs-non-inferiority vs superiority vs equivalence [Online] 2019. Available from:. http://www.certara/2011/01/ 01/trial-designs-non-inferiority-vs-superiority-vs-equivalence/.
Flight L, Julious SA. Practical guide to sample size calculations: Non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Pharm Stat 2016; 15(1): 80-9.
[] [PMID: 26604186]
Göstemeyer G, Blunck U, Paris S, Schwendicke F. Design and validity of randomized dental restorative trials. Materials (Basel) 2016; 9(5) e372
[] [PMID: 28773493]
Schwendicke F, Opdam N. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: Design, conduct, analysis. Dent Mater 2018; 34(1): 29-39.
[] [PMID: 28988780]
Mickenautsch S, Fu B, Gudehithlu S, Berger VW. Accuracy of the Berger-Exner test for detecting third-order selection bias in randomised controlled trials: A simulation-based investigation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 114.
[] [PMID: 25283963]
Zhao W, Berger VW, Yu Z. The asymptotic maximal procedure for subject randomization in clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27(7): 2142-53.
[] [PMID: 27856960]
Berger VW. The reverse propensity score to detect selection bias and correct for baseline imbalances. Stat Med 2005; 24(18): 2777-87.
[] [PMID: 15981305]

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

Year: 2020
Published on: 18 June, 2020
Page: [122 - 130]
Pages: 9
DOI: 10.2174/1574887115666200421110732
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 15