Anelise Fernandes Montagner

Purpose: This longitudinal study aimed to investigate the association between maternal factors during pregnancy and dental caries experience in their children in the third year of life, measured using the modified dmfs index. Methods: The sample comprised 223 mother–child dyads enrolled in a Maternal and Child Public Oral Health Programme, with prenatal dental care and annual child dental follow-up until 36 months of age. Maternal caries experience was assessed using the DMF-T index during pregnancy, and child caries experience was assessed using a modified dmfs index including non-cavitated enamel lesions. Maternal factors were evaluated using Poisson regression with robust variance to estimate relative risks (RR) and 95% CI ( α =0.05). Results: Overall, 6.7% of children presented caries experience in the third year of life. A higher risk of caries experience was associated with maternal age >27 years (RRᴬ=2.50; 95% CI 1.45–4.58), medium/low maternal motivation (RRᴬ=3.96; 95% CI 2.34–6.71), maternal toothbrushing frequency ≤1 time per day (RRᴬ=2.83; 95% CI 1.24–6.46), and maternal presence of decayed (RRᴬ=3.32; 95% CI 1.17–9.46) and missing teeth due to caries (RRᴬ=7.53; 95% CI 2.65–21.37). Conclusion: Maternal behavioural and oral health conditions were associated with their children’s caries experience at age 3 years. These findings highlight the importance of strengthening motivational and preventive oral health strategies for mother–child dyads from pregnancy onwards.

Objectives: This study aimed to validate the use of a 3D intraoral scanner (IOS) for detecting secondary caries lesions around restorations using image-based CARS-derived severity categories, compared with visual-tactile clinical examination. Materials and methods: A diagnostic validation study was conducted at the university clinical facilities, from July 2023 to September 2024, including adult patients with amalgam or composite resin restorations on anterior and posterior teeth. The restorations were assessed using visual-tactile clinical examination, adopted as the clinical reference standard, and IOS image-based assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, binary-classification AUC, and clinical–IOS agreement were estimated. Confidence intervals for diagnostic accuracy measures were obtained using participant-level cluster bootstrap resampling. Results: A total of 299 restorations in 41 patients were assessed. IOS sensitivity varied, with 75% (95% CI: 66.2–82.0) at the initial lesion threshold, 40% (95% CI: 20.8–57.7) at the moderate lesion threshold, and 57.1% (95% CI: 33.3–100.0) at the severe lesion threshold. Specificity was consistently high, with 84.1% (95% CI: 78.7–89.4), 97.4% (95% CI: 95.6–99.2), and 99.7% (95% CI: 98.7–99.7) at the initial, moderate, and severe lesion thresholds, respectively. Binary-classification AUC values were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75–0.84), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58–0.78), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66–1.00) at the initial, moderate, and severe lesion thresholds, respectively. Positive predictive value was highest at the severe lesion threshold (80%), while the negative predictive value was especially high at this threshold (99%). Exact clinical-IOS agreement was 77.9%, whereas linearly weighted observed agreement was 91.1%, with a linearly weighted kappa coefficient of 0.53. Conclusions: The 3D intraoral scanner is a complementary tool for assessing secondary caries lesions, showing high specificity across lesion thresholds. Sensitivity varied according to lesion severity and was less precise at the severe threshold due to the small number of severe lesions. Future research should increase sample sizes and explore combining IOS with other diagnostic methods to improve detection, especially for moderate lesions and higher caries prevalence. Clinical Relevance: Conventional IOS images may assist in documenting and assessing visible changes around restorations. Clinical interpretation should consider the observed sensitivity limitations and incorporate visual-tactile examination and radiographic assessment when indicated.

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.

Objetivo: Este estudio observacional investigó las diferencias de género en las contribuciones de autoría en revistas multidisciplinarias de odontología de alto impacto. Materiales y métodos: Se analizó una muestra de 396 artículos publicados entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2023 en cinco revistas multidisciplinarias de alto impacto en el campo de la odontología. La selección de revistas se basó en el factor de impacto del Journal Citation Reports 2023 en el campo de la odontología. Se incluyeron las cinco revistas multidisciplinarias de odontología con el mayor factor de impacto, considerando aquellas que abarcan temas multidisciplinarios de odontología. Se excluyeron las revistas con un enfoque específico en áreas odontológicas o las revistas multidisciplinarias que cubren la misma área. El género binario del primer y último autor se identificó mediante la base de datos Genderize, y los roles de contribución se extrajeron de las declaraciones de los autores. El análisis de datos incluyó estadística descriptiva y pruebas de chicuadrado de Pearson. Resultados: Los hombres fueron mayoría tanto en la primera (57,1%) como en la última (65,7%) autoría. Entre los primeros autores, se encontraron diferencias significativas por género: las mujeres participaron más en la recopilación de datos (53,9% frente al 46,1%, p = 0,001) y tuvieron mayor probabilidad de contribuir en las cinco categorías de autoría (p = 0,04). No se observaron diferencias significativas por género entre los últimos autores. Se observó variación geográfica, con una mayor proporción de mujeres como primeras autoras en Sudamérica (64,4%). Conclusión: En general, el estudio revela disparidades de género en la distribución del trabajo científico, particularmente en la autoría principal, y destaca la necesidad de mayor equidad y transparencia en el econocimiento de las contribuciones a la investigación.

Objective: This cross-sectional study evaluated the frequency of adherence to sharing dental research data over the last ten years (2013-2023). Methods: Data was obtained by searching the articles published in the five high-impact factor multidisciplinary journals in Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine. A total of 300 dental articles published in three time periods (2013/2018/2023) were randomly selected (n=900). Two researchers performed the study selection and extracted the data. T he main outcome was data sharing (yes/no). Comparative evaluation of data sharing distribution was performed with the Chi-square test and the contribution of variables on the data sharing with adjusted logistic regression. Results: Of the total studies included (n=900), only 20 records reported data sharing practices (data sharing prevalence: 2.2%). A significantly higher prevalence of data sharing was identified among studies published as "open access" [Odds Ratio: 2.97; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.10–8.02], than those published in subscription format. Conclusion: Low adherence to data sharing practices has been identified in the multidisciplinary dental literature. T he results indicated that the type of publication was associated with the outcome, but other aspects, such as the year of publication, continent, and number of citations were not associated with the practice of data sharing.

Purpose To explore the experiences and perceptions of children who underwent minimally invasive dentistry interventions and invasive dental interventions for caries prevention and management. Methods Electronic searches were conducted to identify studies that used qualitative data to assess the phenomenon of interest up to October 2024. Two reviewers conducted the selection of studies independently and in duplicate. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated, and the final synthesised findings were graded. Data were analysed using a meta-aggregative approach. Results The search strategy identified 2503 studies, of which eight were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was rated as good. Five categories were developed, leading to two synthesised key findings: dental fear and anxiety in children, and impressions of the guidance provided. Confidence in the synthesised findings was rated as high. Conclusions Children’s views, as the end users of interventions, reveal factors that influence their acceptance, knowledge retention, coping strategies, and behavioural responses to dental interventions, regardless of the intervention’s level of invasiveness. Findings assist paediatric dentists in tailoring communication and care, considering children’s emotional self-regulation. Dentists and parents are crucial in fostering positive experiences. Interactive and repetitive methods improve oral health knowledge retention and promote lasting behavioural changes.