-
Journal of Dental Research Jan 2016Industry sponsorship was found to potentially introduce bias into clinical trials. We assessed the effects of industry sponsorship on the design, comparator choice, and... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Bias; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Industry; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Research Support as Topic
PubMed: 26442947
DOI: 10.1177/0022034515609270 -
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Feb 2023Adhesive capsulitis is clinically characterized by the gradual progressive painful loss of active and passive motion caused by the formation of adhesions of the joint... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Adhesive capsulitis is clinically characterized by the gradual progressive painful loss of active and passive motion caused by the formation of adhesions of the joint capsule. Adhesive Capsulitis of the Hip (ACH) is not a well-explored clinical condition when compared to adhesive capsulitis of shoulder because of the underdiagnosis and rarity of this condition
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cochrane, Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for original studies on ACH till December 2021 following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Year of publication, authors, number of cases, baseline characteristics of the studies, causes described, presentation, associated conditions, method of diagnosis, treatment to be given, functional outcomes, and complications was extracted from each study.
RESULTS
16 articles were included in this review. 3 of the included studies were retrospective case-control studies, 6 were case series and the remaining 7 were case reports. A total of 224 ACH cases were recorded. Pain and stiffness of the hips were the most common clinical features. Investigations like serology, radiograph, and MRI have been used to rule out other conditions. Arthrography has been used to confirm the diagnosis in 7 studies. Spontaneous recovery is expected in one to two years. Management has been in the form of physiotherapy, intra-articular injection, and arthroscopy.
CONCLUSION
Literature on ACH is limited because of the rarity of the condition. The disease has a favorable prognosis with the possibility of spontaneous recovery. Physiotherapy has been the first line of management. Intractable cases require surgical intervention.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00808-z.
PubMed: 36777126
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00808-z -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2015Denture adhesives have been the objective of scientific research for over half a century. Although they are used by denture wearers worldwide, investigations of their... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Denture adhesives have been the objective of scientific research for over half a century. Although they are used by denture wearers worldwide, investigations of their effectiveness and biocompatibility have led to controversial conclusions.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to review the literature data with regard to the effectiveness and biocompatibility of denture adhesives as well as the attitudes of both patients and dental professionals toward these materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of English peer-reviewed dental literature in the Medline database was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and biocompatibility of denture adhesives. There was no limitation in publication year, so the search included all the available scientific evidence included in that particular database until March 2014. Specific inclusion criteria were used for the selection of the appropriate articles. A manual search of the citations of the obtained articles followed to extend the electronic search.
RESULTS
A full text review was carried out for only 32 articles. Of the 32 articles, 21 examined the efficacy of denture adhesives in terms of retention and stability and masticatory performance, 6 evaluated the issue of the biocompatibility of denture adhesives, and 5 presented the attitudes of either professionals or patients toward these materials.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of clinical studies supported the fact that denture adhesives enhance the retention, stability, and masticatory performance of a removable prosthesis. In terms of biocompatibility, long-term in vivo studies to investigate potential harmful effects were lacking. Patients are satisfied with denture adhesives that meet their needs.
Topics: Adhesives; Attitude of Health Personnel; Attitude to Health; Biocompatible Materials; Denture Retention; Denture, Complete; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Mastication
PubMed: 25749085
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.11.001 -
Operative Dentistry Jul 2023To evaluate the adhesion of universal adhesive systems to the dentin of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the adhesion of universal adhesive systems to the dentin of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Systematic electronic searches were performed by two independent reviewers into the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December of 2021. Only randomized clinical trials were selected, comparing etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies and using universal adhesive systems in NCCLs. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered into PROSPERO.
RESULTS
After the removal of duplicates, 170 articles were identified. In an initial screening of titles and abstracts, 146 records did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were, therefore, excluded. Twenty-four studies were eligible for evaluation of the full text, and four were excluded after this step. Finally, 20 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that applying universal adhesive systems in the etch-and-rinse strategy could lead to better medium-term (>12 to 36 months) retention of NCCL restorations than the self-etch strategy, as well as resulting in lower percentages of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries. However, the use of a self-etching strategy can lead to lower postoperative sensitivity.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cements; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Resin Cements; Composite Resins; Tooth Cervix; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Marginal Adaptation
PubMed: 37352462
DOI: 10.2341/22-067-LIT -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of non-thermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP) treatment on dentin wetting and adhesive-dentin bond strength. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of non-thermal atmospheric plasma (NTAP) treatment on dentin wetting and adhesive-dentin bond strength.
DATA/SOURCES
This report followed the PRISMA 2020 statement. Two reviewers conducted literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus databases up to the end of November 2020. Included in vitro studies compared the effect of NTAP on treated dentin of non-carious, intact, extracted human third molar teeth with different control groups. Studies with no adequate methods, missing data, lack of control group, or those using animal teeth were excluded. The random effects model was used to summarize the treatment effect with standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. Risk of bias was assessed using the custom Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. The effects on dentin wetting were reported in favor of NTAP (SMD -5.38; 95% CI [-6.97, -3.78]; p<0.00001; I2=81%). Regarding adhesive-dentin bond strength, statistically significant differences between the NTAP and control group were in favor of NTAP in the short-term (SMD 1.92; 95%CI [1.35, 2.50]; p<0.00001; I2=97%), and long-term (SMD 3.28; 95%CI [2.46, 4.09]; p<0.00001; I2=97%). A limitation of meta-analysis is moderate heterogeneity caused by methodological differences and lack of data, which was evaluated through risk of bias and sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
NTAP substantially improves dentin wetting and adhesive-dentin bond strength with 30 seconds exposure time and up to 10 mm tip-to-surface distances being sufficient for positive NTAP effects on bonding efficiency.
FUNDING
ON172207 and III41008 from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia. NP is funded by MESTD grant number 451-03-68/2020-14/200024.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis substantiate potential applicability of NTAP treatment of dentin in improving adhesive bonding clinically. Further research should be based on the optimized parameters such as time and distance with additional refinement of NTAP power.
Topics: Animals; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Materials Testing; Plasma Gases; Resin Cements
PubMed: 34363890
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103765 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2017To investigate outcomes of operative and non-operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To investigate outcomes of operative and non-operative management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. We conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating outcomes of operative versus non-operative management of patients with adhesive SBO. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.
RESULTS
We found one RCT, two prospective and three retrospective observational studies, enrolling a total of 876 patients. The analyses showed that operative management of adhesive SBO was associated with a lower risk of future recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.76, P = 0.0005] but a higher risk of mortality [risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, P = 0.01] and complications (OR 5.39, 95% CI 2.97-9.78, P < 0.00001). There was no difference in need for surgical re-intervention rate (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35-1.47, P = 0.36) and length of stay [mean difference (MD) 5.07, 95% CI -2.36-12.49, P = 1.0] between operative and non-operative managements. The baseline suspicion of strangulation was a major confounding factor. When the baseline suspicion of strangulation was higher in the operative group, the risk of mortality (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07, P = 0.0006) and complications (OR 8.14, 95% CI 4.16-15.94, P = 0.00001) were higher in the operative group but the risk of recurrence was lower (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90, P = 0.01). When the baseline suspicion of strangulation was low in both groups, there was no difference in any of the outcomes except recurrence (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.37, P = 0.0009) which was lower in the operative group.
CONCLUSIONS
The difference in baseline suspicion of strangulation between operative and non-operative groups is a major confounding factor in current literature. The benefit of surgical treatment should be balanced with the risks associated with surgery, patient's co-morbidities, and presence or absence of strangulation. Based on the best available evidence it could be argued that surgical intervention could be preserved for cases with high suspicion or evidence of bowel strangulation. The controversy still remains for optimum length of conservative management and timing of surgery (early or late) for cases with low baseline suspicion of strangulation. Randomised controlled trials are required to compare outcomes of early operation (<24 h) versus late operation (>24 h) and early operation versus conservative management in patients with low suspicion of strangulation.
Topics: Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Intestine, Small; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Vascular Diseases
PubMed: 28728984
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.073 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2023The efficacy of etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols for universal adhesives in follow-ups of over 12 months was compared in a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of adhesive strategies for restorative dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials over 12 months of follow-up.
PURPOSE
The efficacy of etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols for universal adhesives in follow-ups of over 12 months was compared in a network meta-analysis.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1998 to 2022 that compared marginal staining, marginal adaptation, retention and fractures, post-operative sensitivity, or recurrence of caries that took place over 12-months post-restoration were selected. A network meta-analysis determined the performance of each adhesive protocol.
RESULTS
After screening 981 articles, 16 RCTs were subjected to data extraction. Of which, 674 patients with 2816 restorations, were included in the network meta-analysis. The pooled risk of marginal discoloration following self-etching was significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse at over 12, 24, and 36 months, which was time-dependent. The pooled risks of unfavorable marginal adaptation and unfavorable retention and fractures following self-etching were also significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse, with the rates of unfavorable retention and fractures in non-carious cervical lesions increasing in a time-dependent manner. The pooled risks of marginal discoloration, unfavorable marginal adaptation, retention and fractures were similar between etch-and-rinse and selective enamel-etching protocols. Post-operative hypersensitivity and recurrence of caries were not significantly different among etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols.
CONCLUSIONS
In follow-ups over 12 months, esthetic and functional outcomes of restorations completed with an etch-and-rinse adhesive protocol were superior to the ones achieved with a self-etching strategy without selective enamel-etching. Selective enamel etching is recommended for self-etching systems. Biological responses were similar for all three adhesive strategies.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Follow-Up Studies; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Adhesives; Denture Retention; Double-Blind Method; Dental Etching
PubMed: 35691823
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00279 -
Pediatric Dentistry Oct 2016The purpose of this study was to assess the scientific evidence regarding the survival and clinical performance of adhesive materials for primary molars, comparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to assess the scientific evidence regarding the survival and clinical performance of adhesive materials for primary molars, comparing composite resin (CR), conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement, and compomer.
METHODS
Six databases were searched without restrictions regarding language or year of publication. Meta-analysis was conducted; risk ratios (RRs) and 95 percent confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
Eleven clinical trials were included. Two studies found that the median survival time (MST) of SRGIC was less than that of GIC and RMGIC (P<0.005), and two studies found that the GIC had a lower MST than both RMGIC and compomer (P<0.05). Meta-analysis for CR, compomer, and RMGIC was conducted. These materials did not differ significantly regarding the number of restorations that survived over 24 months: CR versus RMGIC (RR equals 1.12, 95% CI equals 0.96 to 1.31); CR versus compomer (RR equals 1.04; 95% CI equals 0.96 to 1.13); and compomer versus RMGIC (RR equals 1.03; 95% CI equals 0.84 to 1.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement has the worst survival rate among ionomers, and adhesive materials with a resin component have similar survival rates.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Child; Clinical Trials as Topic; Compomers; Composite Resins; Databases, Factual; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Materials Testing; Molar; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resin Cements; Silicon Dioxide; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 28206891
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.
Topics: Adhesives; Humans; Iodine; Length of Stay; Plastics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25901509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006353.pub4 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Oct 2023We are unsure if continuous passive motion (CPM) has any role in the nonoperative management of the Primary Stiff Shoulder (frozen shoulder). We hypothesized that there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is there any advantage between using continuous passive motion and conventional physical therapy in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
We are unsure if continuous passive motion (CPM) has any role in the nonoperative management of the Primary Stiff Shoulder (frozen shoulder). We hypothesized that there is no difference in pain improvement, range of motion, and function with or without CPM in patients with a primary stiff shoulder.
METHOD
We searched the databases for clinical trials comparing CPM versus no-CPM physiotherapy. In the final step, we reviewed five randomized clinical trials. We collected the data of Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), the visual analog scale of pain, shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and range of motion (flexion, abduction, external and internal rotation). We used a random-effects model to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Five studies with a total of 224 patients were included. There were 113 patients in the CPM arm and 111 in the control arm. Both the CPM and control groups showed significant improvements in all measured parameters compared to the first visit after 8-24 weeks. Meta-analysis of pooled data showed significant differences in pain improvement, forward flexion, and CSS favoring the CPM. Still, there was no significant difference in abduction, external and internal rotation, and SPADI.
DISCUSSION
The CPM seems to be slightly effective in improving pain and motion in the short term, but its long-term efficacy is still under question. The extra cost and time must be considered when offering the CPM.
Topics: Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Range of Motion, Articular; Shoulder Pain; Pain Measurement; Bursitis; Shoulder Joint; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37949549
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.06.005