Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2025

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Reporting completeness of scoping reviews in orthodontic literature up to 2022. An empirical study
Filippos Mikelis1, Despina Koletsi2,3
1School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Aim:
To assess the quality of reporting of Scoping Reviews (ScRs) in Orthodontics according to the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Our secondary aim was to identify publication characteristics, such as year of publication, journal, inclusion of a reporting guideline, and study registration, associated with ScRs reporting quality.
Materials And Methods:
Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched as of 1 August 2022 for identification of orthodontic ScRs. This was supplemented by electronic searches within the contents of eleven specialty journals. The item-specific and overall reporting quality score of the examined orthodontic ScRs, based on the PRISMA Extension Checklist for Scoping Reviews were recorded. Association of reporting quality score with publication characteristics was further examined.
Results:
A total of 40 ScRs were identified and included, with a mean reporting quality score of 73.0 per cent (standard deviation = 14). The majority of studies were published from 2020 onwards (32/40; 80.0%). Of the most adequately reported items were the summary of the evidence description in the Discussion (38/40; 95.0%) and the selection of the sources of evidence in the Results section (34/40; 85.0%). Protocol registration and reporting of limitations were missed in almost half of the ScRs (19/40; 47.5%), while less than half studies were adequately justified (18/40; 45.0%). According to the multivariable linear regression, adherence to appropriate reporting guidelines resulted in improved reporting quality score by 10 per cent (β-coefficient: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.19; P = 0.04), conditional on year and journal of publication. Year, journal of publication, and registration practices did not appear as significant predictors (P > 0.05 in all instances).
Conclusions:
The reporting quality of the examined orthodontic ScRs was suboptimal, with questionable justification for their conduct and certain items being mostly affected.
Related Concept Videos
Osteoclasts in Bone Remodeling
Standards of Care II

