OBJECTIVE: To examine the supporting evidence of advertisements published in six leading orthodontic journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2012-2013 printed issues of American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were screened for advertisements implying superior performance compared with competitor products. Advertisements were classified according to type of product, availability, and currency of supporting references. RESULTS: A total of 99 unique advertisements claiming clinical benefit or superiority were identified. The overwhelming majority of the identified advertisements promoted appliance products (62.6%), orthodontic materials (14.1%), and dental operatory equipment, including imaging systems (12.1%). Advertisements were found to provide references or not regardless of the product type. Half of the advertisements referred to at least one peer-reviewed publication, whereas unpublished studies were cited by 25% of the advertisements. Most of the referenced articles were published within the past 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific background of advertisements in the orthodontic literature appears limited. While surveillance of journal advertising needs to be regulated, clinicians are urged to critically appraise the claims being made in orthodontic print advertisements by consulting the associated existing evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the supporting evidence of advertisements published in six leading orthodontic journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2012-2013 printed issues of American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were screened for advertisements implying superior performance compared with competitor products. Advertisements were classified according to type of product, availability, and currency of supporting references. RESULTS: A total of 99 unique advertisements claiming clinical benefit or superiority were identified. The overwhelming majority of the identified advertisements promoted appliance products (62.6%), orthodontic materials (14.1%), and dental operatory equipment, including imaging systems (12.1%). Advertisements were found to provide references or not regardless of the product type. Half of the advertisements referred to at least one peer-reviewed publication, whereas unpublished studies were cited by 25% of the advertisements. Most of the referenced articles were published within the past 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific background of advertisements in the orthodontic literature appears limited. While surveillance of journal advertising needs to be regulated, clinicians are urged to critically appraise the claims being made in orthodontic print advertisements by consulting the associated existing evidence.