IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0010274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Antoine Popelut
  • Fabien Valet
  • Olivier Fromentin
  • Aurélie Thomas
  • Philippe Bouchard

Abstract

Background: The number of dental implant treatments increases annually. Dental implants are manufactured by competing companies. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have shown a clear association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials and pro-industry results. So far, the impact of industry sponsorship on the outcomes and conclusions of dental implant clinical trials has never been explored. The aim of the present study was to examine financial sponsorship of dental implant trials, and to evaluate whether research funding sources may affect the annual failure rate. Methods and Findings: A systematic approach was used to identify systematic reviews published between January 1993 and December 2008 that specifically deal with the length of survival of dental implants. Primary articles were extracted from these reviews. The failure rate of the dental implants included in the trials was calculated. Data on publication year, Impact Factor, prosthetic design, periodontal status reporting, number of dental implants included in the trials, methodological quality of the studies, presence of a statistical advisor, and financial sponsorship were extracted by two independent reviewers (kappa = 0.90; CI95% [0.77–1.00]). Univariate quasi-Poisson regression models and multivariate analysis were used to identify variables that were significantly associated with failure rates. Five systematic reviews were identified from which 41 analyzable trials were extracted. The mean annual failure rate estimate was 1.09%.(CI95% [0.84–1.42]). The funding source was not reported in 63% of the trials (26/41). Sixty-six percent of the trials were considered as having a risk of bias (27/41). Given study age, both industry associated (OR = 0.21; CI95% [0.12–0.38]) and unknown funding source trials (OR = 0.33; (CI95% [0.21–0.51]) had a lower annual failure rates compared with non-industry associated trials. A conflict of interest statement was disclosed in 2 trials. Conclusions: When controlling for other factors, the probability of annual failure for industry associated trials is significantly lower compared with non-industry associated trials. This bias may have significant implications on tooth extraction decision making, research on tooth preservation, and governmental health care policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Antoine Popelut & Fabien Valet & Olivier Fromentin & Aurélie Thomas & Philippe Bouchard, 2010. "Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-9, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010274
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010274
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010274&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0010274?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunter, John M. & Arbona, Sonia I., 1995. "Paradise lost: An introduction to the geography of water pollution in Puerto Rico," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1331-1355, May.
    2. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2007. "Many Reviews Are Systematic but Some Are More Transparent and Completely Reported than Others," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-2, March.
    3. Lisa Bero & Fieke Oostvogel & Peter Bacchetti & Kirby Lee, 2007. "Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Lenard I Lesser & Cara B Ebbeling & Merrill Goozner & David Wypij & David S Ludwig, 2007. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    2. Ferrán Catalá-López & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Manuel Ridao & Máxima Bolaños & Anna García-Altés & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Salvador Peiró, 2012. "Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-9, May.
    3. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    4. Koop, Gary & Tole, Lise, 1997. "Measuring differential forest outcomes: A tale of two countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 2043-2056, December.
    5. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    7. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Miranda, Marie Lynn & Hale, Brack, 2005. "Paradise recovered: energy production and waste management in island environments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1691-1702, September.
    9. Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Adolfo Maria Tambella & Anna Rita Attili & Gilles Dupré & Andrea Cantalamessa & Stefano Martin & Vincenzo Cuteri & Sabrina Marcazzan & Massimo Del Fabbro, 2018. "Platelet-rich plasma to treat experimentally-induced skin wounds in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, January.
    11. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Gorman, Dennis M. & Conde, Eugenia, 2007. "Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 422-429, November.
    13. Campbell, Norah & Mialon, Melissa & Reilly, Kathryn & Browne, Sarah & Finucane, Francis M., 2020. "How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    14. Diels, Johan & Cunha, Mario & Manaia, Célia & Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo & Silva, Margarida, 2011. "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-203, April.
    15. Benhur Ruqsana, 2019. "The Impact of Source of Funding on the Outcome of Clinical Trials in India," Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, , vol. 18(2), pages 201-216, December.
    16. Anna Lene Seidler & Kylie E Hunter & Nicholas Chartres & Lisa M Askie, 2019. "Associations between industry involvement and study characteristics at the time of trial registration in biomedical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
    17. Ferrán Catalá-López & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Manuel Ridao & Salvador Peiró, 2013. "When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.
    18. Scott Burris, 2008. "Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 65-84, March.
    19. Lexchin, Joel & O'Donovan, Orla, 2010. "Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 643-647, March.
    20. David Krauth & Andrew Anglemyer & Rose Philipps & Lisa Bero, 2014. "Nonindustry-Sponsored Preclinical Studies on Statins Yield Greater Efficacy Estimates Than Industry-Sponsored Studies: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0010274. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.