-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2021Periodontal disease is a chronic inflammatory disease that includes primarily gingivitis and periodontitis, caused by bacterial infection of the supporting structures of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Periodontal disease is a chronic inflammatory disease that includes primarily gingivitis and periodontitis, caused by bacterial infection of the supporting structures of the teeth. For years, much attention has been diverted to periodontal disease among the elderly, not enough attention is paid to adolescents. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the epidemic trend of periodontal disease in adolescents in mainland China.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Chongqing VIP database, Chinese Wan Fang Database, and CBM. A series of subgroup analyses were done to explore the epidemiological characteristics of periodontal disease (gender, location, age, survey year, and geographical distribution) with the help of related software.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included in this study. The data extraction and analysis were from three indexes, including bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth (PD), and dental calculus (DC). The detection rates of BOP(+), PD ≥4 mm and DC(+) were 48.8% (95% CI: 36.2-61.4%), 1.0% (0.0-2.0%), and 49.8% (41.0-58.6%), respectively. There were significant differences for the prevalence of gingivitis both in gender and area: the prevalence was higher in males than that in females, and risk ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01-1.06); a lower prevalence in urban areas compared with rural areas, and the risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96).
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows a high prevalence of gingivitis among adolescents in China. Higher-quality epidemiological surveys with standard examination criteria are needed.
Topics: Adolescent; China; Female; Humans; Male; Periodontal Diseases; Prevalence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33474964
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1919 -
Cureus Aug 2023If left untreated, periodontitis is a chronic, irreversible disease that can contribute to tooth loss. The primary objective of periodontal treatment is to arrest the... (Review)
Review
If left untreated, periodontitis is a chronic, irreversible disease that can contribute to tooth loss. The primary objective of periodontal treatment is to arrest the progression of the disease and restore the supporting structures of the tooth. Scaling and root planing (SRP) is a common non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) used to reduce inflammation, pocket depth, and clinical attachment loss. However, NSPT has limitations, notably in difficult-to-access deep pockets and molar furcations. Deep pockets (greater than 4 mm) frequently retain calculus following NSPT. To attain direct access, surgical periodontal therapy (SPT) is recommended, particularly for pockets deeper than 5 mm. Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has emerged in recent years as a tool for periodontal regeneration when used in conjunction with NSP for infrabony defects. EMD may also have advantageous effects when combined with NSPT. The purpose of this review is to provide a thorough understanding of the effects of EMD as an adjunct to NSPT. The databases Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase were systematically searched to identify relevant studies on the benefits of EMD and its use as an adjunct to NSPT. Incorporating EMD into NSPT reduces chair time, and 60% of studies demonstrated considerable benefits compared to SRP alone, according to the findings. On the basis of research, it can be concluded that EMD can be used as an adjunct to NSPT, thereby reducing the amount of time spent in the operating chair. In some cases, it can, therefore, be regarded as an alternative to surgical treatment.
PubMed: 37719602
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43530 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Aug 2017The maintenance of gingival health around orthodontic fixed retainers (FRs) is difficult and different designs have been proposed. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The maintenance of gingival health around orthodontic fixed retainers (FRs) is difficult and different designs have been proposed.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this systematic review was to analyse whether FR designs that allow unobstructed interproximal flossing, compared with the ones that do not, improve gingival parameters.
SEARCH METHODS
Detailed individual database search strategies for Cochrane Library, 'Latin' American and 'Caribbean' Health Sciences Literature, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were developed. Grey literature was also considered.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical trials and cross-sectional studies that compared two types of FRs (plain and waved) were included and evaluated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment were performed individually and in duplicate. The methodology quality was assessed using the MAStARI RoB tool.
RESULTS
Four studies met the inclusion criteria, and all presented moderate RoB. While two of those studies found a statistically significant difference in gingival parameters, the other two did not report differences. A meta-analysis was conducted based on two of the selected studies, which performed evaluations of plaque index (PI) and calculus index (CI). The results revealed no differences on PI between wave FR and plain FR of 0.46 (0.24 to 0.69) and no differences on CI of 0.12 (-0.10 to 0.33). Regarding comfort, no clear differences were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough scientific evidence to support or not an association between FR design and gingival health, flossing frequency, or patient comfort.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO - CRD42016030059.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque Index; Gingival Diseases; Humans; Oral Hygiene; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Retainers
PubMed: 27629261
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjw057 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2022In orthodontics, the retention phase can be considered challenging and unpredictable. Therefore, evidence obtained from different retention protocols is important to...
BACKGROUND
In orthodontics, the retention phase can be considered challenging and unpredictable. Therefore, evidence obtained from different retention protocols is important to facilitate clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of bonded versus vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) regarding their capacity to maintain treatment stability, periodontal effects, and failure rates.
SEARCH METHODS AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Ten databases comprising published and unpublished literature were systematically searched up to August 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing both retainers were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The risk of bias (RoB) evaluation was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration RoB Tool 2.0. All steps of the screening phase and RoB assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
Initial database search yielded 923 studies. After duplicates removal and full-text assessment, five RCTs remained. Overall, the studies presented Low RoB, except one study judged with 'Some concerns'. Based on the included studies, on a short-term (3-6 months) and long-term (4 years) basis, bonded retainers (BRs) were more effective to maintain treatment stability than VFRs in the lower arch. However, from 12 to 24 months both retainers presented the same efficacy. In the upper arch, the retainers were equally effective. BRs were associated with greater plaque and calculus accumulation than VFRs after 12 months. The retainers' failure rates were similar in the upper arch on the first year of retention; however, after 2 years VFRs showed significantly greater failure rates. Contrarily, BRs presented greater failure rates in the lower arch than VFRs.
LIMITATIONS
The findings of the included studies may be influenced by different factors related to the unpredictability of relapse.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the evidence generated in this systematic review derived from a moderate level of certainty. In the lower arch, BRs are more effective than VFRs to maintain treatment stability in the initial 6 months of retention and in the long term. In the upper arch, both retention protocols are equally effective.
REGISTRATION
Regist0ration number: PROSPERO CRD42020199392.
FUNDING
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Educational Personnel (CAPES, Process code-001).
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Retainers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vacuum
PubMed: 34719722
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjab073 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Dental Calculus; Dental Plaque; Dental Polishing; Dental Prophylaxis; Dental Scaling; Gingivitis; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Periodontal Diseases; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30590875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004625.pub5 -
BMC Oral Health Mar 2024Understanding the distinct proteomics profiles in dogs' oral biofluids enhances diagnostic and therapeutic insights for canine oral diseases, fostering cross-species...
BACKGROUND
Understanding the distinct proteomics profiles in dogs' oral biofluids enhances diagnostic and therapeutic insights for canine oral diseases, fostering cross-species translational research in dentistry and medicine. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to investigate the similarities and differences between the oral biofluids' proteomics profile of dogs with and without oral diseases.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched with no restrictions on publication language or year to address the following focused question: "What is the proteome signature of healthy versus diseased (oral) dogs' biofluids?" Gene Ontology enrichment and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway analyses of the most abundant proteins were performed. Moreover, protein-protein interaction analysis was conducted. The risk of bias (RoB) among the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data.
RESULTS
In healthy dogs, the proteomic analysis identified 5,451 proteins, with 137 being the most abundant, predominantly associated with 'innate immune response'. Dogs with oral diseases displayed 6,470 proteins, with distinct associations: 'defense response to bacterium' (periodontal diseases), 'negative regulation of transcription' (dental calculus), and 'positive regulation of transcription' (oral tumors). Clustering revealed significant protein clusters in each case, emphasizing the diverse molecular profiles in health and oral diseases. Only six studies were provided to the JBI tool, as they encompassed case-control evaluations that compared healthy dogs to dogs with oral disease(s). All included studies were found to have low RoB (high quality).
CONCLUSION
Significant differences in the proteomics profiles of oral biofluids between dogs with and without oral diseases were found. The synergy of animal proteomics and bioinformatics offers a promising avenue for cross-species research, despite persistent challenges in result validation.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Proteomics; Mass Spectrometry; Periodontal Diseases; Bacteria; Mouth Neoplasms
PubMed: 38519930
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04096-x -
JDR Clinical and Translational Research Oct 2017While the oral health of persons with dementia has been shown to be poor, no systematic reviews have been published that examined the topic in depth, including...
While the oral health of persons with dementia has been shown to be poor, no systematic reviews have been published that examined the topic in depth, including participants with dementia representing the full spectrum of disease severity, and evaluating a broad scope of oral health assessments. The aim of this study was to conduct a current literature review to fill this gap in knowledge. A systematic search of 5 databases (CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science) was conducted to identify all relevant studies published up to May 2016. There were no exclusions related to study type, severity of dementia, dentate status, or living arrangements. Results were reported descriptively and summarized. Meta-analyses were performed where possible and reported as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-eight studies were identified. Assessments were conducted of tooth status, active dental caries, hygiene (plaque/calculus) of natural and artificial teeth, periodontal diseases, denture status (retention, stability, denture-related mucosal lesions), and oral health-related quality of life. Across all evaluations, persons with dementia generally had scores/results suggestive of poor oral health. In meta-analyses, compared with persons without dementia, those with dementia had a significantly fewer number of teeth (MD, -1.52; 95% CI, -0.2.52 to -0.52; P = 0.003; n = 13 studies), more carious teeth (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.48; P = 0.028; n = 9), significantly worse oral hygiene evaluated using a broad range of assessment tools (SMD, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.19, P < 0.0001; n = 7), and significantly poorer periodontal health (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.70; P = 0.02; n = 6 studies). The oral health status of persons with mild to severe forms of dementia, who were living in both the community and residential care facilities, was found to be poor across a broad range of dental assessments. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study define the scope of oral issues and quantify the degree of impairment in individuals with dementia, evaluated using a variety of oral health measures. The results revealed that poor oral health is associated with dementia.
PubMed: 30931751
DOI: 10.1177/2380084417714789