BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published on the topic of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search for SRs on ARP on the basis of a set of eligibility criteria (only SRs involving ARP, with or without meta-analyses, written in English). The authors assessed the quality of the SRs independently of one another by using two established checklists. RESULTS: The authors selected eight SRs. The results of all of the SRs indicated that ARP was effective in preserving the ridge volume as compared with extraction alone, but it did not fully prevent bone-resorptive events. None of the SRs, however, received the highest possible score in either of the checklists. One SR that had a score of 5 (of a possible 11) using one checklist and 5 (of a possible 14) using the other checklist had the lowest overall score. The results of this assessment revealed that a significant proportion of the investigators in the SRs did not include non-English language articles, perform hand searching of published literature or evaluate the gray literature. Assessment of publication bias and reporting of conflicts of interest also was lacking in some studies. Practical Implications. Although ARP appears to be an effective approach to preventing resorption after tooth extraction, significant structural and methodological variability exists among SRs on this topic. Future SRs on ARP should consider the use of quality assessment checklists to minimize methodological shortcomings for better dissemination of scientific evidence.
BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published on the topic of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search for SRs on ARP on the basis of a set of eligibility criteria (only SRs involving ARP, with or without meta-analyses, written in English). The authors assessed the quality of the SRs independently of one another by using two established checklists. RESULTS: The authors selected eight SRs. The results of all of the SRs indicated that ARP was effective in preserving the ridge volume as compared with extraction alone, but it did not fully prevent bone-resorptive events. None of the SRs, however, received the highest possible score in either of the checklists. One SR that had a score of 5 (of a possible 11) using one checklist and 5 (of a possible 14) using the other checklist had the lowest overall score. The results of this assessment revealed that a significant proportion of the investigators in the SRs did not include non-English language articles, perform hand searching of published literature or evaluate the gray literature. Assessment of publication bias and reporting of conflicts of interest also was lacking in some studies. Practical Implications. Although ARP appears to be an effective approach to preventing resorption after tooth extraction, significant structural and methodological variability exists among SRs on this topic. Future SRs on ARP should consider the use of quality assessment checklists to minimize methodological shortcomings for better dissemination of scientific evidence.