Acceledent: The advertising has started!
Acceledent: The advertising has started!
This is a quick additional blog post on Acceledent again. You may remember that I have posted about AcceleDent before. This is because it is a new technology that may have some potential, but there is currently a lack of evidence on its effectiveness.
In two of these posts I have discussed recent clinical trials. The first of these studies reported an effect of Acceledent on tooth movement. This study, in my academic opinion, was so significantly flawed that it should not have been published. My previous post is here. At present, this is due for hardcopy publication in the Seminars in Orthodontics September edition. I have asked the editor and executive editor of seminars to consider withdrawing this paper from publication but they have stated that the publication will stimulate discussion! It can be found here, and it is open access.
I was, therefore, very concerned to see that AcceleDent have issued a press release based on data from this low quality study. Importantly, this paper contains a positive result. It was very interesting that they did not mention another trial of higher quality that shows the use of AcceleDent did not need to an increase in speed of tooth movement! This blog post is here.
Why does this concern me?
I am concerned because the publication and publicity promotes an expensive piece of equipment that is being recommended to our patients and there is currently a lack of clinical trial evidence to support the advertising claims.
Secondly, it is very disappointing that Seminars has chosen to publish this paper It is worth pointing out the conflict of interest that is declared at the start of the paper.
“Funding, Conflict of Interest: This study was supported by the research grant from the OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. [(OATI), Bellaire, TX], which was permitted to review this manuscript, but the right to a final decision on the content was exclusively retained by the authors. The corresponding author (D.P.) is a consultant for OATI and had participated in developing the study protocol approved by the FDA. He was blinded to the group assignments and did not participate in either data collection or treatment of any of the enrolled subjects”.
In this respect a journal should carry out the highest levels of review. I still cannot understand how this paper was accepted for publication, when you consider the significant flaws. Furthermore, it is concerning that the editor of this special issue promotes the use of accelerated orthodontic techniques, including micro-vibration, to his patients on his office website (http://www.houseoforthodontia.com/accelerated-ortho).
I hope that the authors of the paper, the editor of the issue and the executive editor can recognise these important issues and consider whether they should have this paper reviewed again?
I know that I feel strongly about these issues and people may disagree with me. If you feel the same way, could you circulate this post as widely as you can. It is time that we, as clinician scientists, put our patient’s interests first. My plea is that good studies should be done that inform the advertising, particularly on clinicians websites. We owe this to our patients.
I would like to point out that my concerns are not with Acceledent. They have funded a study and interpreted the findings in their advertising literature. My real problems are with the study authors who should have known that the study was flawed, following feedback from referees of other journals. I also feel that the editors of Seminars in Orthodontics have “slipped up” by publishing this study and I have to question their editorial and refereeing process. I still call upon them to get this paper reviewed by experience clinical trial referees. If not I hope that the editorial board take this issue seriously and advise the editor and executive editor.
If you want to debate these issues please use the comments section of this blog. There is still no word from Seminars in Orthodontics or the authors of the paper following my last post. It would be great if you could comment? Also it would be great to hear from other clinicians and academic/clinicians for their views on this. I know that it is the holiday season, but is anybody out there? Or am I a lone voice?