Academic Strengthening Suggestions for the Eden Baysal Seminar

1. Research Question / Aim (Critical Gap)

• Primary aim: To evaluate whether the EBDTI demonstrates superior utility compared to existing TDI classification systems
• Specific objectives: assess diagnostic completeness, inter-examiner reliability, digital compatibility, and epidemiological utility across systems
• State clearly: "This is a narrative/critical review, not a clinical trial" - so the audience understands the methodology

2. Methodology Slide (Missing Entirely)

• Databases used (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Scholar)
• Search terms used
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria for papers reviewed
• Time period covered
• How many papers were included

3. Introduction (Slides 2-4) - Statistical Grounding Needed

4. Historical Timeline (Slides 5-6) - Needs Context, Not Just Dates

• Add a brief rationale column: what clinical or research need drove each new system
• Note that the jump from 1995 WHO to 2020 EBDTI is a 25-year gap - what happened in between? (e.g., IADT guidelines, global prevalence data explosion)
• The ICD-11 / NA0D story is buried in slides 15-18 but should be hinted at here in the timeline

5. Individual Classification Slides (Slides 7-14) - Inconsistent Depth and Missing References

• The Ellis slide has advantages/limitations - good
• The Garcia-Godoy slide (Slide 9) has a typo in the title ("GARCI-GODOY") and a flimsy, two-point critique
• Slides 10-14 are image-only with no text explanation - these will be meaningless to a reader who is not present, and weak even for a live audience without narration
• Andreasen's slide is strong but calls it "Gold Standard" without citing a study that designates it as such

• Fix the Garcia-Godoy typo
• For each classification, use a consistent comparison table format: Injuries covered, Tissue types included, Reliability data, Epidemiological utility, Digital compatibility - this makes the comparison objective and structured
• Add at least one citation for each classification system, not just EBDTI
• Replace image-only slides (10-14) with labeled tables or annotated diagrams, or add text callouts

6. WHO / ICD Section (Slides 15-18) - Dense Text Slides

• Break the walls of text - each paragraph-long slide should become a summarized point-form slide
• Add a NA0D Structure Explainer - a brief table or diagram showing the actual NA0D code structure (similar to how EBDTI's five-digit structure is explained for slides 21-25)
• The emotional tribute is fine but should be a footnote, not the main message of the slide

7. EBDTI Structure Explanation (Slides 19-28) - Actually Strong, Minor Fixes Needed

• Slide 19: Add the original publication citation inline - Eden E, Baysal M, Andersson L. Dent Traumatol. 2020 (PMID: 31705735). The index is described without citing the validation paper.
• Slide 22: Typo - "more then one" should be "more than one"
• Slides 21-25: Consider a cumulative worked example across the digit slides - build one coding scenario step-by-step as each digit is introduced, so the student constructs the code progressively rather than seeing it only in the case studies

8. Clinical Cases (Slides 29-30) - Good Structure, Needs Analysis

• Add a column showing how the same case would be coded in Andreasen and ICD-11 NA0D side-by-side
• Comment on what EBDTI captures that the others miss (apex maturity in Case 1, multi-tooth combined soft tissue coding in Case 2) - this directly answers the seminar's central question
• Acknowledge any limitation in the coding of the cases (e.g., was the radiographic apex assessment straightforward? Would two examiners agree?)

9. Comparison Section (Slides 36-40) - Needs a Formal Comparison Table

10. Reliability and Validity Data - Almost Absent

11. Conclusion (Slide 40) - Needs Qualification

• Frame the conclusion as evidence-graded: What does the validation study show? What does clinical adoption show? What is still unknown?
• Add a Gaps and Future Research slide: Is there a head-to-head reliability comparison of EBDTI vs. Andreasen in the literature? Is there a study comparing epidemiological datasets coded in both systems? If not, that is itself a research gap worth pointing out.

12. References (Slide 41) - Formatting and Completeness Issues

• References are inconsistently formatted (some have journals, some do not; no volume/issue/page numbers; no DOIs or PMIDs)
• The 2024 Khan paper from "Journal of Primary Care Dentistry" is cited but not discussed anywhere in the slides
• Andreasen's textbook is cited vaguely as "Textbook and Color Atlas editions cited in the reviewed sources" - this is not a proper reference

• Use a consistent citation style throughout (Vancouver or APA - pick one)
• Add DOIs or PMIDs to all references
• Add the NA0D paper (Petti S et al., PMID: 35481941) as a formal citation
• Consider adding the 2024 systematic review on TDI prevalence (Hashim et al., PMID: 39735559) to strengthen the introduction
• Remove or properly cite the Andreasen textbook entry

13. Structural / Slide Design Issues

Summary Priority List

1. Add Aim/Objectives and Methodology slides - foundational for academic credibility
2. Build a formal 5-system comparison table - this is the academic spine of the seminar
3. Report actual reliability (kappa) data from the validation study
4. Fix all references to a consistent, complete format with DOIs
5. Fix all typographical errors listed above
6. Add epidemiological numbers to the introduction
7. Replace image-only slides with labeled content
8. Add a Gaps / Future Research slide before the conclusion

• "Better" is vague and unscientific
• It's phrased as a yes/no question, which undersells the nuanced comparative analysis inside
• "Traumatic Injuries Classifications" is grammatically awkward
• It doesn't signal the scope (dental, pediatric, epidemiological, coding)

If the seminar is a critical comparative review

Eden Baysal Dental Trauma Index: A Critical Appraisal Against Established Classification Systems

Comparative Evaluation of Traumatic Dental Injury Classification Systems: Spotlight on the Eden Baysal Dental Trauma Index

If the focus is on utility / clinical use

From Ellis to Eden Baysal: Evolution and Utility of Traumatic Dental Injury Classification Systems

Coding Dental Trauma: How Does the Eden Baysal Index Stand Among Existing Classification Systems?

If the focus is on research / epidemiological value

Traumatic Dental Injury Classification Systems: Evaluating the Eden Baysal Index for Clinical and Epidemiological Application

Best overall recommendation

From Ellis to Eden Baysal: Evolution of Traumatic Dental Injury Classifications and the Case for a Structured Coding Index

• "From Ellis to Eden Baysal" signals the historical arc covered in the seminar
• "Evolution" is accurate - the seminar is really a narrative of how TDI classification has developed
• "The Case for a Structured Coding Index" honestly reflects the conclusion without making an overconfident claim
• It avoids "better," which the seminar itself qualifies heavily in its own conclusion