Beyond statistical significance: Interpreting effect sizes in dental research

Despite substantial advances in dental and periodontal research, study findings are still frequently interpreted primarily on the basis of statistical significance, potentially leading to overestimation of their clinical relevance. This issue is particularly relevant in studies, where small absolute numerical changes in outcomes such as clinical attachment level or probing pocket depth may reach statistical significance without translating into meaningful clinical benefits for patients. Greater emphasis should be placed on effect sizes, which provide critical information on the magnitude and direction of treatment effects or strengths of associations and correlations. In addition, confidence intervals play an important role for assessing study findings, as they convey the precision of estimates and help determine whether observed effects are likely to be clinically meaningful. A shift in focus from statistical significance alone to a more balanced evaluation that includes effect magnitude and precision is necessary to improve the translation of research into practice. Scientific authors, reviewers, and journal editorial teams share responsibility for promoting this broader framework for interpreting research findings. Prioritizing clinically meaningful interpretation over mere statistical significance will strengthen the relevance and impact of periodontal research and support more informed clinical decision-making processes.