Effect of Industry Sponsorship on Dental Restorative Trials

Abstract

Industry sponsorship was found to potentially introduce bias into clinical trials. We assessed the effects of industry sponsorship on the design, comparator choice, and findings of randomized controlled trials on dental restorative materials. A systematic review was performed via MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. Randomized trials on dental restorative and adhesive materials published 2005 to 2015 were included. The design of sponsored and nonsponsored trials was compared statistically (risk of bias, treatment indication, setting, transferability, sample size). Comparator choice and network geometry of sponsored and nonsponsored trials were assessed via network analysis. Material performance rankings in different trial types were estimated via Bayesian network meta-analysis. Overall, 114 studies were included (15,321 restorations in 5,232 patients). We found 21 and 41 (18% and 36%) trials being clearly or possibly industry sponsored, respectively. Trial design of sponsored and nonsponsored trials did not significantly differ for most assessed items. Sponsored trials evaluated restorations of load-bearing cavities significantly more often than nonsponsored trials, had longer follow-up periods, and showed significantly increased risk of detection bias. Regardless of sponsorship status, comparisons were mainly performed within material classes. The proportion of trials comparing against gold standard restorative or adhesive materials did not differ between trial types. If ranked for performance according to the need to re-treat (best: least re-treatments), most material combinations were ranked similarly in sponsored and nonsponsored trials. The effect of industry sponsorship on dental restorative trials seems limited.