-
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry 2019The objectives of this scoping review were: first, to pose a research question; second, to identify relevant studies to answer the research question; third, to select...
PURPOSE
The objectives of this scoping review were: first, to pose a research question; second, to identify relevant studies to answer the research question; third, to select and retrieve the studies; fourth, to chart the critical data; and finally, to collate, summarise, and report the results from selected articles on the dental management of children affected with autism.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Relevant articles (randomised controlled trials, reviews, observational studies, and clinical case reports) published over an 11-year period were identified and retrieved from five internet databases: PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and EBSCO.
RESULTS
By title and abstract screening and after removing duplicates, 25 articles were finally included in the present scoping review. According to the extracted data, the following four clinical issues were found to be most important: patient behavioural control, prevalence/incidence of dental caries, adverse effects and interactions with medications, and orthodontic management. Additionally, several useful clinical recommendations are provided.
CONCLUSIONS
Paediatric dentists should bear in mind that early diagnosis and treatment, effective communication skills, and a long-term follow-up of children with autism continue to be the best approaches for achieving enhanced patient psychological well-being and consequently a better quality of life.
Topics: Autistic Disorder; Child; Dental Caries; Dentists; Humans; Pediatric Dentistry; Quality of Life
PubMed: 31209442
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a42665 -
Pediatric Dentistry Jul 2020The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess success rates for nonvital treatment in primary teeth for caries/trauma. Databases were searched... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess success rates for nonvital treatment in primary teeth for caries/trauma. Databases were searched between 1960 and 2020 for randomized controlled trials, cohorts, case series, and in vitro studies. The primary outcome was overall success (clinical and radiographic) for pulpectomy and lesion sterilization tissue repair (LSTR). Included articles were independently determined, agreed upon, data extraction assessed, risk of bias, meta-analyses, and assignment of quality of evidence (GRADE). Comparing teeth with and without root resorption, pulpectomy success was better (P<0.001) in teeth without preoperative root resorption. Success with pulpectomies performed with zinc oxide eugenol [ZOE] and with Endoflas (ZOE plus iodoform plus calcium hydroxide) did not differ from that observed using Vitapex or Metapex (iodoform plus calcium hydroxide; P0.50) after 18 months; however, Endoflas and ZOE success rates remained near 90 percent versus 71 percent or less for iodoform. Network analysis ratings showed Endoflas and ZOE performed better than iodoform alone. Also, LSTR performed better (P<0.001) than pulpectomies in teeth with preoperative root resorption, but pulpectomy results were superior (P=0.09) if roots were intact. Rotary instrumentation of root canals was significantly faster (P<0.001) than manual instrumentation. Success rates were not impacted by method of obturation or root length determination, type of tooth, number of visits, irrigants, smear layer removal, or timing/type of final restoration. Eighteen-month success rates support Endloflas and zinc oxide eugenol pulpectomies over iodoform pulpectomies. Lesion sterilization tissue repair had limited indication for teeth with resorbed roots.
Topics: Calcium Hydroxide; Dental Caries; Humans; Pulpectomy; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Resorption; Tooth, Deciduous; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 32847665
DOI: No ID Found -
Oral Diseases May 2021The objective was to assess the global oral lichen planus prevalence. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published before September 2019.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective was to assess the global oral lichen planus prevalence. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published before September 2019. We evaluated the quality of studies and carried out several meta-analyses. The global pooled prevalence was 1.01%, with a marked geographical difference (p < .001). The highest prevalence was reported from Europe (1.43%) and the lowest in India (0.49%), where tobacco-associated keratosis appears to mask oral lichen planus resulting in attenuation of its prevalence. From the age of 40 years, the prevalence increases significantly and progressively (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.48-4.73, p < .001). Studies that define diagnostic criteria report a higher prevalence (1.31% vs. 0.70%, p = .03), although the application of the WHO criteria (year 1978-2007) does not increase the ability to diagnose the disease compared with other criteria (p = .11). The studies performed by oral medicine/oral pathology specialists report significantly higher prevalence (1.80%) than dentists (0.61%) and dermatologists (0.33%; p < .001). In conclusion, we propose that reliable diagnostic criteria should be defined, which should include a set of essential criteria including the presence of white reticular lesions in any location of the oral mucosa. The impact of histopathological confirmation with defined diagnostic criteria must be researched in the future, although its main use should be to determine the presence or absence of epithelial dysplasia. The necessity to improve the knowledge of oral lichen planus among dentists and dermatologists through continuing education is apparent in the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Adult; Carcinoma in Situ; Europe; Humans; India; Lichen Planus, Oral; Prevalence
PubMed: 32144836
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13323 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, tooth cracks or chips, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. This review updates the previous version published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit or over two or more visits, with or without medication, makes any difference in term of effectiveness or complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 14 June 2016. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of people needing RoCT. We excluded surgical endodontic treatment. The outcomes of interest were tooth extraction for endodontic problems; radiological failure after at least one year, i.e. periapical radiolucency; postoperative pain; swelling or flare-up; painkiller use; sinus track or fistula formation; and complications (composite outcome including any adverse event).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We collected data using a specially designed extraction form. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. We assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane tool and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE criteria. When valid and relevant data were collected, we undertook a meta-analysis of the data using the random-effects model. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses for necrotic and vital teeth.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 RCTs in the review, with a total of 3780 participants, of whom we analysed 3751. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, 14 at high risk, and eight as unclear.Only one study reported data on tooth extraction due to endodontic problems. This study found no difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits (1/117 single-visit participants lost a tooth versus 2/103 multiple-visit participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 4.78; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; 1493 participants, 11 studies, I = 18%; low-quality evidence); immediate postoperative pain (dichotomous outcome) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 1560 participants, 9 studies, I = 33%; moderate-quality evidence); swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.81; 281 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); sinus tract or fistula formation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.48; 345 participants, 2 studies, I = 0%; low-quality evidence); or complications (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; 1686 participants, 10 studies, I = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).The studies suggested people undergoing RoCT in a single visit may be more likely to experience pain in the first week than those whose RoCT was over multiple visits (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28; 1383 participants, 8 studies, I = 54%), though the quality of the evidence for this finding is low.Moderate-quality evidence showed people undergoing RoCT in a single visit were more likely to use painkillers than those receiving treatment over multiple visits (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.45; 648 participants, 4 studies, I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment) is better than the other. Neither can prevent all short- and long-term complications. On the basis of the available evidence, it seems likely that the benefit of a single-visit treatment, in terms of time and convenience, for both patient and dentist, has the cost of a higher frequency of late postoperative pain (and as a consequence, painkiller use).
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appointments and Schedules; Dental Pulp Necrosis; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Office Visits; Pain, Postoperative; Pulpitis; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27905673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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
Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.
Topics: Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Child; Chloral Hydrate; Dental Anxiety; Dental Care for Children; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Meperidine; Midazolam; Nitrous Oxide; Preanesthetic Medication; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30566228
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003877.pub5 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2020The aim of this systematic review was to investigate current penetration and educational quality enhancements from digitalization in the dental curriculum. Using a...
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate current penetration and educational quality enhancements from digitalization in the dental curriculum. Using a modified PICO strategy, the literature was searched using PubMed supplemented with a manual search to identify English-language articles published between 1994 and 2020 that reported the use of digital techniques in dental education. A total of 211 articles were identified by electronic search, of which 55 articles were selected for inclusion and supplemented with 27 additional publications retrieved by manual search, resulting in 82 studies that were included in the review. Publications were categorized into five areas of digital dental education: Web-based knowledge transfer and e-learning, digital surface mapping, dental simulator motor skills (including intraoral optical scanning), digital radiography, and surveys related to the penetration and acceptance of digital education. This review demonstrates that digitalization offers great potential to revolutionize dental education to help prepare future dentists for their daily practice. More interactive and intuitive e-learning possibilities will arise to stimulate an enjoyable and meaningful educational experience with 24/7 facilities. Augmented and virtual reality technology will likely play a dominant role in the future of dental education.
Topics: Dentistry; Education, Dental; Education, Distance; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 32392877
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17093269 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Jun 2021The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred...
The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and 1 study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of "implant surgery-triggered" medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained before implant placement.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Jaw; Osteonecrosis
PubMed: 32699903
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00351 -
BMJ Open Feb 2017Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment using meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.
DATA
Controlled trials comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal treatment of permanent teeth were included. Trials needed to assess the risk of long-term complications (pain, infection, new/persisting/increasing periapical lesions ≥1 year after treatment), short-term pain or flare-up (acute exacerbation of initiation or continuation of root canal treatment).
SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) were screened, random-effects meta-analyses performed and trial-sequential analysis used to control for risk of random errors. Evidence was graded according to GRADE.
STUDY SELECTION
29 trials (4341 patients) were included, all but 6 showing high risk of bias. Based on 10 trials (1257 teeth), risk of complications was not significantly different in single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.35); weak evidence). Based on 20 studies (3008 teeth), risk of pain did not significantly differ between treatments (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.30); moderate evidence). Risk of flare-up was recorded by 8 studies (1110 teeth) and was significantly higher after single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.89); very weak evidence). Trial-sequential analysis revealed that firm evidence for benefit, harm or futility was not reached for any of the outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to rule out whether important differences between both strategies exist.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Dentists can provide root canal treatment in 1 or multiple visits. Given the possibly increased risk of flare-ups, multiple-visit treatment might be preferred for certain teeth (eg, those with periapical lesions).
Topics: Humans; Office Visits; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Canal Therapy; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 28148534
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013115 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body... (Review)
Review
Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body areas in relation to healthcare professions. The underlying question is, worldwide, whether there are areas that are more exposed depending on the occupation or whether there are common areas that are highly exposed to MSDs. This issue has been extended to risk factors and responses to reduce MSDs. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2022. Google scholar and Science Direct databases were scanned to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed, critically appraised, and extracted data from these studies. Overall and body area prevalence, risk factors, and responses to MSDs were synthetized by occupational activity. Among the 21,766 records identified, 36 covering six healthcare professions were included. The lower back, neck, shoulder and hand/wrist were the most exposed areas for all healthcare professionals. Surgeons and dentists presented the highest prevalence of lower back (>60%), shoulder and upper extremity (35-55%) MSDs. The highest prevalence of MSDs in the lower limbs was found for nurses (>25%). The main causes reported for all healthcare professionals were maintenance and repetition of awkward postures, and the main responses were to modify these postures. Trends by continent seem to emerge regarding the prevalence of MSDs by healthcare profession. Africa and Europe showed prevalence three times higher than Asia and America for lower back MSDs among physiotherapists. African and Asian nurses presented rates three times higher for elbow MSDs than Oceanians. It becomes necessary to objectively evaluate postures and their level of risk using ergonomic tools, as well as to adapt the work environment to reduce exposure to MSDs with regard to the specificities of each profession.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Health Personnel; Ergonomics; Risk Factors; Delivery of Health Care; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 36613163
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010841 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2020Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the...
Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is idiopathic chronic oral pain, associated with depression, anxiety and pain symptoms. The BMS symptoms include a burning sensation in the tongue and/or other oral mucosa with no underlying medical or dental reasons. As many BMS patients suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, several psychotropic drugs are included in the management of BMS, reducing the complaint, while managing anxiety, depression and pain disorders. In this review, a search of the published literature regarding the management of BMS was conducted. We discuss the BMS etiology, clinically associated symptoms and available treatment options. The current evidence supports some BMS interventions, including alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), clonazepam, capsaicin, and low-level laser therapy (LLLT); however, there is a lack of robust scientific evidence, and large-scale clinical trials with long follow-up periods are needed to establish the role of these BMS management options. This knowledge could raise the awareness of dentists, psychiatrists and general practitioners about these challenges and the available kinds of treatment to improve multidisciplinary management for better health outcomes.
Topics: Burning Mouth Syndrome; Capsaicin; Clonazepam; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Pain
PubMed: 33113291
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/120991