Luiz Alexandre Chisini

Introduction: Ageing and tooth retention expand root caries susceptibility. This study aimed to evaluate socioeconomic inequalities in untreated root caries. Methods: Cross-sectional data from the 2010 and 2023 Brazilian National Oral Health Surveys (SB Brasil) were analysed, including dentate adults (35–44 years) and older adults (65–74 years). Untreated root caries was assessed according to WHO criteria. Socioeconomic inequalities were evaluated using educational attainment, household income, household assets, and a latent socioeconomic position (SEP) indicator estimated through generalized structural equation modelling. Absolute and relative inequalities were quantified using the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Concentration Index (CIX), respectively. Results: Overall, 28,318 dentate participants were included (13,220 in 2010 and 15,098 in 2023). Between survey years, edentulism declined from 20.2% to 11.5%. Prevalence of root caries increased from 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2–17.9) in 2010 to 22.0% (95% CI: 19.2–25.2) in 2023, particularly among older adults (22.4–26.8%). Negative SII and CIX values indicated that root caries remained concentrated among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Among adults, absolute inequalities widened over time, increasing from −17.6 to −21.7 p.p. according to SEP. Among older adults, SEP inequalities that were not consistently observed in 2010 became statistically significant across all indicators in 2023, reaching −23.8 percentage points (SII) and −15.4 (CIX). Conclusion: Untreated root caries prevalence increased in Brazil between 2010 and 2023 despite substantial gains in tooth retention. Socioeconomic inequalities persisted and intensified over time, suggesting that the ongoing epidemiological transition in oral health has expanded the population susceptible to root caries without equitable improvements across social groups.

Gender inequalities persist in the scientific community, including dentistry, affecting key aspects such as representation, success, and recognition. Despite progress in increasing women's participation in research, disparities remain, particularly in publication rates, citation impact, funding acquisition, and leadership positions. This opinion article examines the systemic and structural barriers that impede women's academic advancement, introduces the Tree of Gender Inequality in Science model, and discusses potential interventions to promote gender equity in science. Gender disparities in academia are deeply rooted in systemic biases and institutional structures. Women are consistently underrepresented among highly cited researchers, editorial boards, and grant recipients. Implicit biases, discriminatory hiring practices, and limited access to mentorship further hinder their career progression. However, interventions such as unconscious bias training, mentorship programs, and equity-based institutional reforms have the potential to address these inequalities. In conclusion, addressing gender disparities in academia requires a multifaceted approach that combines policy reforms, institutional commitment, and cultural shifts. Achieving gender equality is essential for scientific innovation and progress. Immediate action is needed to dismantle barriers and create inclusive environments that enable all researchers to thrive.

This study evaluated the methodological quality and presence of spin in systematic reviews with meta‐analyses comparing single‐visit and multiple‐visit endodontic treatment, and investigated factors associated. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials were included without restrictions on language or publication year. Narrative reviews, reviews without meta‐analysis, non‐randomised or non‐clinical studies, and conference abstracts were excluded. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and grey literature in January 2025. Spin was classified using the Yavchitz et al. framework, and methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction and spin assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Spin was identified in 12 studies of abstracts and 10 of full texts, mainly as a misleading interpretation. Most reviews were rated as low or critically low quality. Positive results and absence of risk‐of‐bias assessment were associated with increased spin in full texts.

To investigate the prevalence and types of spin, assess reporting quality and risk of bias, and identify factors associated with spin in systematic reviews with meta-analyses of nonrandomized studies in restorative dentistry. Five databases were searched through October 2025. Eligible systematic reviews compared at least two restorative materials or interventions for permanent teeth and reported restoration longevity, survival, or success/failure. Spin was assessed in abstracts and main texts using the classification by Yavchitz et al. Reporting quality and risk of bias were evaluated using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Associations with spin were explored using Poisson and ordinal logistic regression. Twenty-six systematic reviews were included. Spin was identified in 92.3% of abstracts and 96.15% of main texts. In abstracts, the most frequent strategies were failure to declare conflicts of interest (34.61%) and failure to consider differences in study designs (34.61%). In the main text, common strategies included inadequate consideration of reporting bias (80.76%), insufficient consideration of risk of bias of primary studies (34.61%), and conclusions claiming equivalence despite nonsignificant results with wide confidence intervals (26.31%). Most reviews were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2 (73.08%), and 38.46% had high risk of bias by ROBIS. Exceeding the abstract word limit (prevalence ratio [PR = 1.69; 95%CI: 1.19–2.42), failure to report funding sources (PR = 2.10; 95%CI: 1.22–3.59), and absence of a structured abstract (PR = 1.56; 95%CI: 1.18–2.07) were associated with spin. Spin is prevalent in systematic reviews of nonrandomized studies in restorative dentistry and is associated with inadequate reporting practices.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the potential links between clinically assessed oral health conditions and depressive symptoms in adults. Six databases were searched for observational studies examining dental caries, periodontal disease, or tooth loss through clinical examination, and depressive symptoms through validated instruments. Data extraction and quality assessment (JBI) were independently performed by two reviewers, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for compatible effect measures (OR), assessing heterogeneity. Out of 6.917 unique records, 20 studies were selected. The meta-analyses revealed increased odds of depression for patients who experienced tooth loss (pooled OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.09–1.30, I2 = 54.7%), supported by a dose-response gradient in subgroup analyses. Periodontal disease also increased the odds of depression (pooled OR = 1.59, 95%CI: 1.14–2.21, I2 = 0.0%). Conversely, depression as an exposure was associated with higher odds of dental caries (pooled OR = 1.20, 95%CI: 1.04–1.39, I2 = 0.0%), but not with periodontal disease. The relationship between oral and mental health seems to be condition-specific, with robust quantitative evidence indicating the importance of tooth loss in the development of depressive symptoms, which in turn increase the odds for dental caries, suggesting a possible feedback loop. Evidence for depression affecting periodontal status remains inconclusive.