-
Journal of Dental Research Jun 2016For restoring cavitated dental lesions, whether carious or not, a large number of material combinations are available. We aimed to systematically review and synthesize... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
For restoring cavitated dental lesions, whether carious or not, a large number of material combinations are available. We aimed to systematically review and synthesize data of comparative dental restorative trials. A systematic review was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2015 were included that compared the survival of ≥2 restorative and/or adhesive materials (i.e., no need for restorative reintervention). Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed, with separate evaluations for cervical cavitated lesions and load-bearing posterior cavitated lesions in permanent and primary teeth. A total of 11,070 restorations (5,330 cervical, 5,740 load bearing) had been placed in 3,633 patients in the included trials. Thirty-six trials investigated restoration of cervical lesions (all in permanent teeth) and 36 of load-bearing lesions (8 in primary and 28 in permanent teeth). Resin-modified glass ionomer cements had the highest chance of survival in cervical cavitated lesions; composites or compomers placed via 2-step self-etch and 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesives were ranked next. Restorations placed with 2-step etch-and-rinse or 1-step self-etch adhesives performed worst. For load-bearing restorations, conventional composites had the highest probability of survival, while siloranes were found least suitable. Ambiguity remains regarding which adhesive strategy to use in load-bearing cavitated lesions. Most studies showed high risk of bias, and several comparisons were prone for publication bias. If prioritized for survival, resin-modified glass ionomer cements might be recommended to restore cervical lesions. For load-bearing ones, conventional or bulk fill composites seem most suitable. The available evidence is quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient for further recommendations, especially with regard to adhesive strategies in posterior load-bearing situations. Moreover, different material classifications might yield different findings on the same materials. Future trials should aim for sufficient power, longer follow-up times, and high internal validity to prove or refute differences between certain material combinations. An agreed material classification for future syntheses is desirable.
Topics: Acid Etching, Dental; Bayes Theorem; Composite Resins; Dental Cavity Preparation; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans
PubMed: 26912220
DOI: 10.1177/0022034516631285 -
IScience Jan 2021Although high-performance carbon materials are widely used in surface engineering, with emphasis on carbon nanotubes (CNTs), the application of CNT nanocomposites on... (Review)
Review
Although high-performance carbon materials are widely used in surface engineering, with emphasis on carbon nanotubes (CNTs), the application of CNT nanocomposites on medical surfaces is poorly documented. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the antimicrobial and anti-adhesive properties of CNT-based surfaces. For this purpose, a PRISMA-oriented systematic review was conducted based on predefined criteria and 59 studies were selected for the qualitative analysis. Results from the analyzed studies suggest that surfaces containing modified CNTs, and specially CNTs conjugated with different polymers, exhibited strong antimicrobial and anti-adhesive activities. These composites seem to preserve the CNT toxicity to microorganisms and promote CNT-cell interactions, as well as to protect them from nonspecific protein adsorption. However, CNTs cannot yet compete with the conventional strategies to fight biofilms as their toxicity profile on the human body has not been thoroughly addressed. This review can be helpful for the development of new engineered medical surfaces.
PubMed: 33490909
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.102001 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2023To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cements; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Bonding; Dental Debonding; Ceramics; Materials Testing
PubMed: 35506474
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12585 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2022Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) are one of the main reproductive system diseases in women worldwide. Fusion between the injured opposing walls leads to partial-to-complete...
BACKGROUND
Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) are one of the main reproductive system diseases in women worldwide. Fusion between the injured opposing walls leads to partial-to-complete obliteration of the cavity and/or cervical canal. The main clinical manifestations in case of IUAs are menstrual disturbances, cyclic pain and reproductive disorders. The reproductive outcomes of women with IUAs remain limited and inefficient compared to women without IUAs, even after adhesiolysis. An exact understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes to explain the compromised reproductive performance and outcomes in case of IUAs are lacking.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of MEDLINE-PubMed (1966 to January 2022) and EMBASE (1974 to January 2022) was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported underlying causes, related mechanisms and processes to explain the association between IUAs and impaired reproductive performance, pregnancy and obstetric complications.
RESULTS
After an extensive review of the literature, 58 articles were identified reporting underlying mechanisms to explain the association between IUAs and impaired fertility. Intrauterine scarring influences the process of fertilization, reproductive performance and ultimately reproductive outcome. IUAs can disturb the cervico-utero-tubal sperm transport and result in an avascular and unresponsive endometrium with decreased receptivity and thickness. Abnormal decidualization and abnormal trophoblastic infiltration leads to placental attachment disorders. Moreover, the risk for premature delivery, intrauterine fetal growth restriction and fetal anomalies is increased in case of IUAs.
CONCLUSION
The impact of IUAs on reproductive performance, even after adhesiolysis, is becoming more apparent. The postulated mechanisms to explain the association are related to sperm transport, embryo implantation and placentation. Prevention, by preserving the basal layer of the endometrium is essential. Effective and evidence-based strategies for the prevention of endometrial injury and formation of IUAs, are urgently needed.
Topics: Male; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Placenta; Semen; Uterine Diseases; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 36376829
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05164-2 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or... (Review)
Review
Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and μTBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (α < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.
PubMed: 37109832
DOI: 10.3390/ma16082996 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2022Denture adhesives are widely used products, but limited evidence regarding their toxicity is available. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Denture adhesives are widely used products, but limited evidence regarding their toxicity is available.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this scoping review was to map the existing literature on the toxic potential of denture adhesives.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This scoping review was structured based on the 5-step methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The methods were registered on the Open Science Framework (
). The following research question was formulated: Are there any toxic effects related to the use of denture adhesives? The electronic literature search was performed independently by 2 authors in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were in vitro and clinical studies; studies that evaluated the cytotoxic properties of denture adhesives as local or systemic implications; and studies published in English. RESULTS
The search conducted in October 2020 provided 1099 articles. In total, 33 studies were included, 14 in vitro and 19 clinical studies. Commercially available denture adhesives have a dose-dependent cytotoxic effect on fibroblasts and keratinocytes, with poor cell recovery noted in older human fibroblasts. Patients presented different levels of neurologic or hematological alterations associated with the excessive use of denture adhesives.
CONCLUSIONS
Most commercially available denture adhesives have a dose-dependent cytotoxic effect, and the use of well-adapted removable dental prostheses, proper patient follow-ups, and correct instructions for their use when indicated should be a priority.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Dentures
PubMed: 33888328
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Adhesives; Adolescent; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries; Dental Cements; Female; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Male; Molar; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Resin Cements; Young Adult; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 27779317
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub4 -
Journal of Dentistry May 2021This systematic review aims to investigate the efficacy of denture adhesives (DAs) for complete dentures (CDs), and to provide clinical recommendations for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to investigate the efficacy of denture adhesives (DAs) for complete dentures (CDs), and to provide clinical recommendations for prosthodontists and general practitioners.
DATA/SOURCES
Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL) and gray literatures were searched (up to March 2020) for relevant randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) evaluating the efficacy of DAs when applied to CDs. Primary outcomes were objectively assessed variables directly related to mastication (denture retention, maximum bite force and masticatory efficiency). Secondary outcomes included other objectively assessed variables and patient-reported outcomes.
STUDY SELECTION
Of the 1729 records identified, 39 studies (43 articles) were included in the analysis. Among them, 23 were RCTs and 16 were CCTs, with two multicenter clinical trials (1 RCT and 1 CCT). Meta-analysis results indicated that DAs provided significantly higher retention (SMD 1.34, 95 % CI: 0.89-1.79, P < 0.001) for CDs. Bite force (SMD 0.98, 95 % CI: 0.50-1.47, P < 0.001) and masticatory performance (SMD 0.72, 95 % CI: 0.23-1.22, P = 0.004) of the CD wearers were also improved after using DAs, but the effect size was relatively smaller.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this systematic review, it is concluded that DAs can improve denture retention, bite force and masticatory performance of CD wearers.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This study investigated the effects of all types of DAs for CDs in terms of their effects on denture retention, masticatory performance, oral health-related quality of life and oral microorganisms for CD wearers.
Topics: Adhesives; Bite Force; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Humans; Mastication; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33727079
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103638 -
Pediatric Surgery International Feb 2018Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is one of the most important cause of postoperative morbidity in children who underwent abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is one of the most important cause of postoperative morbidity in children who underwent abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic management for ASBO in pediatric patients has been reported. However, its safety and efficacy has not been evaluated in details. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy for the treatment of ASBO in children.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of intervention and the preferred reporting item for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017067914). The primary outcome was the number of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Quality of evidence was summarized using the grades of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We identified three observational studies and no randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis was done only for the primary outcome. Complications were significantly fewer after laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (Odds ratio = 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.66; p < 0.01; I : 0%). The overall risk of bias was considered serious.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results, based on observational studies, indicate that laparoscopy for ASBO was associated with less postoperative complications compared to conventional laparotomy. However, the quality of evidence is very low. A well-controlled study is needed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopy for pediatric patients with ASBO.
Topics: Child; Decision Making; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Intestine, Small; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 29018940
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-017-4186-0 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine May 2021Frozen shoulder is a common shoulder disorder characterized by pain and restriction. Various nonsurgical treatments have been reported, but there is no consensus about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy and Patient-Specific Moderating Factors of Nonsurgical Treatment Strategies for Frozen Shoulder: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Frozen shoulder is a common shoulder disorder characterized by pain and restriction. Various nonsurgical treatments have been reported, but there is no consensus about their comparative efficacy and the effects of moderators.
PURPOSE
To compare the efficacy of different nonsurgical interventions and identify potential patient-specific moderating factors for frozen shoulder.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception to February 18, 2019. The search was supplemented by manual review of relevant reference lists. Randomized controlled trials of participants with frozen shoulder that compared nonsurgical interventions were selected. Measured outcomes included pain, shoulder function in daily activities, and range of motion.
RESULTS
Of 3136 records identified, 92 trials were eligible, evaluating 32 nonsurgical interventions in 5946 patients. Intra-articular injection improved pain (pooled standardized mean difference [95% CI]: steroid injection, 1.68 [1.03-2.34]; capsular distension, 2.68 [1.32-4.05]) and shoulder function (steroid injection, 2.16 [1.52-2.81]; distension, 2.89 [1.71-4.06]) to a greater extent than placebo. Capsular distension and extracorporeal shockwave therapy showed the highest ranking for pain relief and functional improvement, respectively. Laser therapy also showed benefits for pain relief (3.02 [1.84-4.20]) and functional improvement (3.66 [1.65-5.67]). Subgroup analyses by disease stages revealed that steroid injection combined with physical therapy provided more benefits during the freezing phase, whereas joint manipulation provided more benefits in the adhesive phase. Adjunctive therapies, female sex, and diabetes were also identified as moderators of effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Capsular distension is a highly recommended choice for treatment of frozen shoulder, contributing greatly to pain relief and functional improvement; steroid injection is also a prevailing effective intervention. Among new options, extracorporeal shockwave therapy and laser therapy show potential benefits for multiple outcomes. Individualized optimal intervention should be considered, given that treatment effect is moderated by factors including the disease stage, time of assessment, adjunctive therapies, female sex, and diabetes.
Topics: Bursitis; Female; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Network Meta-Analysis; Range of Motion, Articular; Shoulder Joint; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 32941053
DOI: 10.1177/0363546520956293