With the increasing complexity of Implant Dentistry, clinicians must know from which type of article they can expect the best clinical evidence.1 The JOI has several article types to benefit readers, whether they are implant researchers or “wet fingered” implant dentists attempting to provide state-of-the-art treatment for patients. An article type may be specific for one group or have value for both clinicians and researchers. The JOI received 332 submissions in 2021 and accepted 63 for publication (19% acceptance rate). The JOI editorial staff attempts to select a mix of articles to meet the interest of the JOI readers. Articles chosen for publication are based upon peer-review comments and suitable revisions.
The article types published in the JOI include the following2:
Clinical and Dental Implant Science Research articles include publications that explore new and improved ways of treating patients in need of dental implants, implant restorations, or those patients experiencing implant complications.3 Clinical research articles use scientific investigation methods to study implant treatment options and provide evidence-based criteria for selecting the most suitable treatment choices. Implant-specific science research papers focus on determining the mechanisms behind various successful implant options and are essential to the evolution of modern implant dentistry. Both Clinical and Science Research papers have hypothesis-driven experimental designs that can be specifically tested and are supported by extensive introductions, experimental results, far-reaching discussions, and specific conclusions based on research results.
Clinical Case Reports are detailed reports of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up of one or a limited number of patients. Case reports usually describe an unusual or novel treatment and are one of the foundations for the evolution of implant treatments. Case reports provide an extensive review of relevant literature and provide scientific validity.4
Clinical Case Letters present a practical clinical problem and provide the author's therapeutic logic. The case description includes the history, examination, case-management, and the treatment outcome. The topic should be set within the framework of a relevant literature review. The discussion educates the reader and opens the debate on therapeutic options. The logic of the author's treatment choices is explained with consideration given to the risks and benefits of potential outcomes. Clinical Case Letters are designed to enlighten readers about an interesting clinical situation or therapeutic option. They can also serve as the introduction of a new technique, new implant material or therapeutic approach, or as the first step leading to a clinical research protocol.2
Research Letters introduce an interesting basic science problem or concept to be examined and discussed, followed by a description of investigation methods, results, and discussion of limited data. This format is limited to simple protocols. They are reader-friendly, even if the letter refers to a complex science topic. The format is a pedagogic tool for research communication and is not data intensive. Research Letters can use an open format for the purpose of elucidating a concept and provide discussion on a “timely” or novel research topic.2
Comprehensive or Systematic Review Papers are normally submitted by invitation, but the JOI does consider unsolicited submissions. The purpose of these review types is to bring the reader up to date with research in a particular aspect of implant dentistry. The review highlights areas of special interest and progress. Because the readership of JOI is wide-ranging, it is essential that the Comprehensive or Systematic Review be understandable to a non-specialist in the discipline of implant dentistry. However, the article should aim to provide an authoritative, in-depth discussion of current progress and problems and should not consist of a laborious report that includes every paper in the area. References of consequence and particular interest are all that are required. These reviews should identify areas in implant dentistry where further developments are pending or of pressing need, and any areas that may be of importance to the discipline. Additionally, the review should (i) clearly state the objective with a well-defined and reproducible search methodology, (ii) attempt to identify all significant studies that meet the eligibility criteria through the literature search strategy, (iii) evaluate the validity of the results and conclusions of the included studies, and (iv) not contain any original research.2,5
Mini-Review Papers are highlights or summaries of clinical/science research in an evolving area in implant dentistry from the previous 2–3 years. Mini reviews are not intended to be as encompassing as Comprehensive or Systematic Reviews; rather, they are meant to emphasize recent and important developments in a specific subject area. Mini reviews do not include unpublished original research. Upcoming specific subject developments may be included in the Conclusions section of the paper.2
Letters to the Editor: JOI welcomes Letters to the Editor. To keep the letters timely, the editorial staff will expedite submission of Letters to the Editor. Short letters (≤ 600 words) of the highest quality are published. Only letters regarding a specific JOI article are published. These letters are limited to one or two critical points to provide a clear and precise discussion. All assertions put forth in the letter are supported by peer-reviewed science research or large clinical studies rather than case report(s).2
These seven article types offer something for all readers of the JOI. The hierarchy level of evidence may vary with article type. Hierarchy determination is generally considered as: Level I as presenting the highest quality of evidence, with Level V providing the lowest quality of evidence.
- Level I:
Clinical and science research or systematic reviews that include studies utilizing high quality prospective, randomized control trials (RCTs) with consistent results.
- Level II:
Lesser quality RCTs or systematic reviews that present with inconsistent results.
- Level III:
Clinical Case Reports that are retrospective, comparative studies with non-consecutive patients or systematic review of Level II studies.
- Level IV:
Clinical Case Letters and Research Letters provide clinical information regarding a single patient treatment. Case Letters and Research Letters have a diminished level of evidence because there are no reported controls or comparative treatment outcomes.
- Level V:
Mini-review papers and Letters to the editor maybe considered at the lowest level because they are not comprehensive, but rather focused on an update of one specific aspect of implant dentistry.1
The hierarchy listing is not meant to be critical of article types with lower rankings, but rather meant to inform clinicians of what they can reliably use for decision making on their next clinical case. Level I and II articles have more scientific validity supporting them than do Level IV and V articles. However, Level IV and V articles may stimulate creative thoughts and discussion among colleagues that lead to future Level I or II research publications. All articles have value, the important action is to understand what we are reading and apply what we read in the proper way.
