I am a 67-year-old prosthodontist in private practice for 38 years, a life member of the ADA and the author of numerous dental articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Having read JADA for my entire professional life, I am writing to you to express my concerns about Dr. Bruce Matis and colleagues’ April JADA article, "A Three-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Dentin Bonding Agents."
This is the first time I have ever expressed my concerns about a published article, although it certainly is not the only article to which I should have critically responded. This letter was prompted by Dr. Jeffcoat’s editorial in the same issue, "A Perfect Storm: Lessons From the Vaccine Controversy." Little information was provided in Dr. Matis’ article about the dental condition of the 39 subjects selected for this research study. What were the criteria used for their selection? Photographs of the single subject chosen to represent the group appeared in Figure 2. The limited view of this subject’s dentition and gingiva is more typical of a 20-year-old than a 70-year-old woman, as reported in the legend that accompanies these photographs. The photographs are beautiful illustrations of insignificant cervical lesions that require no treatment. There are no radiographs or full-mouth intraoral photographs to document this subject’s remaining dentition or occlusion.
The subjects for this study appear to have been carefully selected to ensure a predictable outcome. What is the status of the remaining 38 subjects used in this study? I must assume that all of the lesions studied were cervically located, although the authors never actually disclosed this fact. How can the outcome of treatment be established for treatment that is not required?
The ADA and its journal represent the standards of our profession. How can the editor and reviewers approve the publication of a study with so little documentation? This article would have been more appropriately published in a trade magazine than in a scientific journal.
Published articles are cited to support future research. If the research design for these articles is flawed, distorted information becomes accepted as fact. Most disturbing of all is that this article has been selected by the editor to fulfill continuing education requirements. Our profession is encouraging evidence-based treatment. We rely on journals like JADA to provide guidelines for treating our patients. We should not rely on poorly documented research to form our choice of treatment.
