The study is a secondary analysis of pseudonymised

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the limitations and recommendations and limitations section of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 5 journals. Those papers have been cited 1 times in total.

Supporting evidence — 5 representative gaps

• From blood to biology: evaluating platelet-rich plasma as a scaffold in regenerative endodontics — a systematic review (2026) · Journal of Baghdad College of Dentistry · doi

  The evidence base is limited by small sample sizes, inconsistent reporting of baseline tooth characteristics, and variability in RET protocols and imaging modalities. Restricting inclusion to RCTs improved internal validity but reduced the number of eligible studies. Meta-analysis was not possible because of substantial heterogeneity, and publication bias could not be meaningfully assessed with fewer than ten studies.

  generallimitationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: evidence base limited small sample sizes inconsistent reporting baseline tooth characteristics variability protocols imaging modalities
• Photobiomodulation in clinical practice: knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of Australian dental practitioners (2026) · Lasers in Dental Science · doi

  This study has several limitations. First, the use of snowball sampling may introduce selection bias, as practitioners with an interest in technologies may have been more likely to respond. Second, data were based on self-reported knowl- edge and behaviours, which may be subject to recall bias. Third, although the sample size exceeded the calculated minimum requirement, the findings may not be fully gen- eralisable to all Australian dental practitioners. Finally, the sample size limits the ability to assess causal relationships between education, attitudes, and clinical behaviour. 1 3Lasers in Dental Science (2026) 10:20  20 Page 6 of 7 Future research should explore barriers to PBM adop- tion in greater depth using qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups. Additional studies could assess whether targeted CPD interventions improve knowledge and increase clinical uptake. Additionally, national guide- lines and standardised clinical protocols for PBM in den- tistry would support safe and consistent implementation. Further economic evaluations may also be useful to deter- mine cost-effectiveness in routine practice.

  generallimitationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: clinical bias practitioners sample size dental assess several limitations first snowball sampling introduce selection interest
• Association between tooth agenesis and root morphology assessed by periapical radiographs (2026) · Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie · cited 1× · doi

  This study presents several methodological limitations that must be acknowledged for accurate interpretation of the findings. First, the cross-sectional and retrospective design prevents the establishment of causal or temporal relation- ships between tooth agenesis and altered root morphology. Despite the verified statistically significant associations, the findings should be interpreted as correlations rather than cause-and-effect relationships. Second, the sample was ex- clusively obtained from private dental radiology centers, which may introduce a selection bias and limit the exter- nal validity of the results to broader populations, including those found in public healthcare systems. Additionally, the reduced sample size in specific subgroups may have de- creased the statistical power and limited the generalization of some analyses. Although three calibrated professionals carefully reviewed the records and rigorously excluded un- certain cases, the lack of access to complete clinical records represents an additional limitation, as it restricts the abil- ity to verify potentially confounding conditions. Root mor- phology assessment was based solely on two-dimensional periapical radiographs, which are less capable of detecting subtle three-dimensional variations than cone-beam com- puted tomography. Furthermore, the study did not incor- porate genetic or environmental variables, which influence dental development. Genes involved in root morphogene- sis, such as WNT10A and MSX1, as well as environmental factors during odontogenesis, may have contributed to the outcomes but were not assessed in this dataset. These limi- tations evidence the need for future prospective and multi- center studies that integrate clinical, radiographic, and ge- nomic data to deepen the understanding of root anomalies associated with tooth agenesis. Moreover, the imbalance between the groups with and without agenesis may compromise the precision of the esti- mates and limit the generalizability of the findings, particu- larly in the subgroups with lower representativeness. Future studies with more balanced samples and prospective multi- center designs are necessary to validate these findings with more robustness. Finally, this study suggests the need for future research investigating the interaction of environmental and epige- netic factors with genetic predispositions to influence root morphology, considering that the existing literature ad- dresses these factors in isolation rather than integrating their contributions for advanced development. Longitudinal studies, such as that of Intarak et al. [8], may provide valu- able insights into the impact of external factors on tooth development and their clinical implications.

  generallimitationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: root ndings factors tooth agenesis clinical environmental development future morphology rather sample dental limit subgroups
• Statistical Reporting Quality in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Journals: A Comparative Analysis of SCI-E and TR Indexed Publications (2026) · The Eurasian Journal of Medicine · doi

  statistical for reporting in biomedical journals. Clin Med (Lond). 2025;25(3):100304. [CrossRef] improving 18. Nour-Eldein H. Statistical methods and errors in family medicine articles between 2010 and 2014-Suez Canal University, Egypt: a cross-sec- tional study. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2016 5(1):24- 33. [CrossRef] 19. Nieminen P, Vähänikkilä H. Use of data analysis methods in dental publications: is there evidence of a methodological change? Publications. 2020;8(1):9. [CrossRef]. 23. Nakagawa  S, Cuthill  IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007;82(4):591-605. [CrossRef] Erratum in: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2009;84(3):515. 24. Moher  D, Schulz  KF, Altman  D, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised rec- ommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1987-1991. [CrossRef] Ioannidis JP. Why most published research find- false. PLOS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. ings are [CrossRef] PLOS Med. in: 2022;19(8):e1004085. 10.1371/journal. pmed.1004085

  generalrecommendationsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: crossref statistical reporting improving publications biol camb philos consort group trials plos biomedical journals clin
• Partial-mouth plaque recording revisited: evaluation of tooth- and surface-based subsets using a data-driven benchmark (2026) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi

  The study is a secondary analysis of pseudonymised intraoral scans obtained from an earlier study. The study had a small sample size of 30 adults. The study only included participants with complete dentition, except third molars, and without restorations on vestibular and oral smooth surfaces. The study excluded participants with cavitated caries, gap teeth, and gingival recession of more than 1/3 of the root length

  generallimitations sectionevidence 5/5
  Keywords: study secondary analysis pseudonymised intraoral scans obtained earlier

Questions about this gap