PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence on dental proportion to evaluate the existence of RED proportions in the esthetic smile in different geographic regions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted by reviewing different databases. The focused question was "Does RED proportion exist in esthetically pleasing smiles in different populations around the world?" The search included articles with a combination of MeSH keywords based on dental proportion from January 2000 to July 2020. The titles and abstracts were identified by using a search protocol. Full text of the articles was independently evaluated. The systematic review was modified to summarize the relevant data. The general characteristics, outcomes, and quality of studies were reviewed and analyzed systematically.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were selected from the reviewed articles. Three studies were conducted in Europe, 10 in South Asia, and 4 in Western Asia. Eleven studies found that the mean perceived ratio of anterior teeth was not constant when progressing distally. Five studies reported that the ratio was constant in a small percentage of their populations, and 1 suggested that the ratio was constant if it remains between 60% and 80%. The central-to-LI and Ca-to-LI proportion values were not constant. Overall, the Ca-to-LI proportion values were higher than the central-to-LI proportions.
CONCLUSIONS: RED proportions were not found in the successive widths of maxillary anterior teeth among the reviewed data from different geographic regions. RED proportions are not the only standard for restoring esthetic smiles worldwide, and anterior tooth proportions differ among populations based on their race and ethnicity.
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.
MAIN RESULTS: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.