-
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2019Vitapex has been a popular obturating material for several decades. In recent times, lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR) has shown promising results. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vitapex has been a popular obturating material for several decades. In recent times, lesion sterilization and tissue repair (LSTR) has shown promising results. This technique uses a mixture of 3 antibiotics for sterilization of the root canals and healing of periradicular tissues.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to compile all the literature comparing Vitapex and LSTR for pulpally involved primary teeth and evaluate the success rate in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review is based on PRISMA guidelines. The electronic search on MEDLINE via PubMed database and Google scholar, cross-referencing and hand search of journals was carried out for articles from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019. Articles only in the English language were selected. Out of the 17 articles, 3 unique articles were identified for the review, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials and 1 was a retrospective study.
RESULTS
All the three articles were assessed for their quality and all had a low risk of bias. It was found that LSTR and Vitapex had a high clinical success after 12 months. The radiographic success after 6 months was high but decreased after 12 months in both the groups.
CONCLUSION
There is no difference in the success rate of LSTR as compared to Vitapex for the treatment of pulpally involved primary teeth.
PubMed: 33088056
DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_76_20 -
Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology May 2020The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions.
METHODS
The literature search included five databases (), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by (GRADE).
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75-2.02; : 0%; = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Nerve; Molar, Third; Paresthesia; Radiography, Panoramic; Spiral Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 31724883
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20190265 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment...
BACKGROUND
Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.
RESULTS
The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.
FUTURE WORK
Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Molar, Third; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32589125
DOI: 10.3310/hta24300 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Feb 2019Palatal soft tissue graft harvesting is a common procedure in periodontal and implant dentistry. However, most of the complications after this procedure are associated...
PURPOSE
Palatal soft tissue graft harvesting is a common procedure in periodontal and implant dentistry. However, most of the complications after this procedure are associated with the underestimation of anatomic structures, such as the greater palatine artery (GPA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide guidelines for a safety zone for palatal harvesting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted to identify cadaveric and computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT studies assessing the location of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) and the path of the GPA in relation to the maxillary teeth. The effect of age, gender, and cadaveric and CT or cone beam CT studies on the location of the GPF and on the course of the GPA also was assessed.
RESULTS
This systematic review included 26 studies, investigating 5,768 hemipalates. The most common location of the GPF was in the midpalatal aspect of the third molar (57.08%). As it traverses the palate anteriorly, the distance from the GPA to the maxillary teeth gradually decreases, except in the second premolar region, where it has the tendency to increase (13.8 ± 2.1 mm). The least distance from the GPA to the teeth was found in the canine area (9.9 ± 2.9 mm), whereas the greatest distance was in the second molar region (13.9 ± 1 mm). A safety zone for palatal harvesting was proposed based on the anatomic findings.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides guidelines for identifying the position of the GPF and defines a safety zone for harvesting a free gingival graft or connective tissue graft, minimizing the risk of GPA injury.
Topics: Arteries; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Humans; Molar; Palate; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 30395825
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.10.002 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Nov 2023Mandibular second molar (M2M) impaction is a serious eruption disorder. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the therapeutic approaches for M2M... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Mandibular second molar (M2M) impaction is a serious eruption disorder. The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the therapeutic approaches for M2M impaction. The objective of the meta-analysis was to summarize the success of the surgical, surgical-orthodontic, and orthodontic treatment.
METHODS
A PRISMA-guided search strategy was conducted by 2 authors in 5 databases up to January 2023. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials were considered. Case reports, case series with<5 patients, and reviews were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool for nonrandomized and randomized clinical trials, respectively. Outcomes were as follows: 1) treatment success rate defined by the repositioning of impacted M2M in the dental arch with normal functional occlusal relationship and periodontal health; 2) time-to-repositioning as time-to-event analysis; and 3) complications. Meta-analysis examined treatment success differences with 3 approaches: orthodontic (uprighting maneuvers/traction), surgical (surgical procedures/strategic extractions), and surgical-orthodontic (combined surgical and orthodontic procedures) as the exposure variable. The quantitative analysis also compared the success rate using third molar removal as the secondary predictor variable. The χ test determined the statistical heterogeneity (I2); a cut-off of 70% was used to select the common or random effects model. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were recorded.
RESULTS
A total of 1,102 articles were retrieved. After full-text reading, 16 articles were included and 1008 M2Ms were analyzed. Nine studies had fair quality, 6 studies had good quality, and 1 had unclear risk of bias. Managing impacted M2Ms showed a moderate to high success rate (66.7 to 100%). Significant differences favoring surgical treatment over orthodontic treatment were observed for M2M uprighting (OR = 4.97; CI: 1.49 to 16.51; P = .01).No differences were detected comparing surgical and surgical-orthodontic treatment (OR = 1.00; CI: 0.03 to 37.44; P = .99), or orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment(OR = 4.14; CI: 0.43 to 40.14; P = .22).Third molar removal showed no significant correlation with M2M uprighting (OR = 1.98; CI: 0.24 to 16.03; P = .5).
CONCLUSION
Despite study limitations, both orthodontic and surgical management of impacted M2M can be effective suggesting that clinicians are able to choose best treatment for most cases.
Topics: Humans; Molar; Tooth Extraction; Dental Care; Tooth, Impacted; Molar, Third
PubMed: 37699532
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2023.08.168 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local...
BACKGROUND
Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is performed in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an review originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 May 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 May 2019). 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
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with no restriction on length of follow-up, comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We also considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently and in duplicate conducted the risk of bias assessments. When information was unclear, we contacted the study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update includes the same two studies that were identified in our previous version of the review: one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom, and one prospective cohort study, which was conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low- to very low-certainty evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures. One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effects of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth. One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch. The included studies did not measure any of our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed or retained. Although retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is very low certainty. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the current lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision-making with people who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain these teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asymptomatic Diseases; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32368796
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003879.pub5 -
Medicine Mar 2018Implantanchorage continues to receive much attention as an important orthodontic anchorage. Since the development of orthodontic implants, the scope of applications has... (Review)
Review
Implantanchorage continues to receive much attention as an important orthodontic anchorage. Since the development of orthodontic implants, the scope of applications has continued to increase. Although multiple reviews detailing implants have been published, no comprehensive evaluations have been performed. Thus, the purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the effects of implants based on data published in review articles.An electronic search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Ebsco and Sicencedirect for reviews with "orthodontic" and "systematic review or meta analysis" in the title, abstract, keywords, or full text was performed. A subsequent manual search was then performed to identify reviews concerning orthodontic implants. A manual search of the orthodontic journals American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Angle Othodontist was also performed. Such systematic reviews that evaluated the efficacy and safety of orthodontic implants were used to indicate success rates and molar movements.A total of 23 reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of each review was assessed using a measurement tool for Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and the review chosen to summarize outcomes had a quality score of >6. Most reviews were less than moderate quality. Success rates of implants ranged in a broad scope, and movement of the maxillary first molar was superior with implants compared with traditional anchorage.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Molar; Orthodontics
PubMed: 29595673
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010232 -
Journal of Dentistry Sep 2014Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Pulpotomy is a common procedure to treat asymptomatic reversible pulpitis in primary molars. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different pulpotomy procedures in primary molars.
DATA
Three authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
SOURCES
An electronic literature search was performed within MEDLINE (via PubMed), ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalKey databases until December 2012. Medications for pulpotomy including formocresol, ferric sulfate, calcium hydroxide, and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and laser pulpotomy are compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses. The outcome is the odds ratio for clinical and radiographic failure including premature tooth loss at 12 and 24 months after treatments amongst different treatment procedures. 37 studies were included in the systematic review, and 22 of them in the final network meta-analyses. After 18-24 months, in terms of treatment failure, the odds ratio for calcium hydroxide vs. formocresol was 1.94 [95% credible interval (CI): 1.11, 3.25]; 3.38 (95% CI: 1.37, 8.61) for lasers vs. formocresol; 2.16 (95% CI: 1.12, 4.31) for calcium hydroxide vs. ferric sulfate; 3.73 (95% CI: 1.27, 11.67) for lasers vs. ferric sulfate; 0.47 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.83) for MTA vs. calcium hydroxide; 3.76 (95% CI: 1.39, 10.08) for lasers vs.
MTA CONCLUSIONS
After 18-24 months, formocresol, ferric sulfate, and MTA showed significantly better clinical and radiographic outcomes than calcium hydroxide and laser therapies in primary molar pulpotomies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The network meta-analyses showed that MTA is the first choice for primary molar pulpotomies. However, if treatment cost is an issue, especially when the treated primary molars are going to be replaced by permanent teeth, ferric sulfate may be the choice.
Topics: Aluminum Compounds; Calcium Compounds; Calcium Hydroxide; Drug Combinations; Ferric Compounds; Formocresols; Humans; Laser Therapy; Molar; Oxides; Pulpitis; Pulpotomy; Root Canal Irrigants; Silicates; Tooth, Deciduous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24513112
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.001 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Dec 2023Molar incisor hypomeralisation (MIH) is a dental condition clinically characterised by the presence of morphological and qualitative enamel defects involving the...
AIM
Molar incisor hypomeralisation (MIH) is a dental condition clinically characterised by the presence of morphological and qualitative enamel defects involving the occlusal and/or incisal third of one or more permanent molars or incisors. Its worldwide prevalence ranges between 2.4 and 40%. Several harmful conditions, such as genetic or medical problems during pregnancy, may act together and increase the risk of MIH. The main objective of this systematic review is to assess whether there is a correlation between MIH and dental caries in mixed or permanent dentition.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed on PubMed (Medline), Scopus and Cochrane Library for articles published from August 2022 to April 2023. Cohort, cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective studies were included. In vitro and animal studies, as well as clinical cases and systematic reviews, were excluded. Studies not differentiating between mixed and permanent dentition were excluded. The observed variables were DMFT (Decayed Missed Filled Teeth) score, DMFS (Decayed Missed Filled Surface) and DMF scores related to FPM (First Permanent Molar) and the clinical prevalence of MIH.
CONCLUSION
DMFT, DMFS and DMFT on FPM scores are significantly different between the group of patients with MIH and the control group. The available evidence supports a correlation between MIH lesions and caries. Caries indexes scores increase proportionally to the severity of MIH.
Topics: Animals; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Molar Hypomineralization; Prevalence; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Molar
PubMed: 38015112
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2023.1985 -
Archives of Oral Biology Aug 2023To determine the association between genetic factors and molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and/or hypomineralised second primary molars by means of a systematic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the association between genetic factors and molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and/or hypomineralised second primary molars by means of a systematic review.
DESIGN
A search was performed in Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases; manual search and search in gray literature were also performed. Selection of articles was performed independently by two researchers. A third examiner was involved in cases of disagreement. Data extraction was performed using an Excel® spreadsheet and independent analysis was performed for each outcome.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included. There was an association between MIH and genetic variants related to amelogenesis, immune response, xenobiotic detoxification and other genes. Moreover, interactions between amelogenesis and immune response genes, and SNPs in the aquaporin gene and vitamin D receptors were associated with MIH. Greater agreement of MIH was found in pairs of monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. The heritability of MIH was 20 %. Hypomineralised second primary molars was associated with SNPs in the hypoxia-related HIF-1 gene and methylation in genes related to amelogenesis.
CONCLUSION
With very low or low certainty of evidence, an association was observed between MIH and SNPs in genes associated with amelogenesis, immune response, xenobiotic detox and ion transport. Interactions between genes related to amelogenesis and immune response as well as aquaporin genes were associated to MIH. With very low certainty of evidence, hypomineralised second primary molars was associated to a hypoxia-related gene and to methylation in genes related to amelogenesis. Moreover, higher agreement of MIH in pairs of monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins was observed.
Topics: Humans; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Molar Hypomineralization; Xenobiotics; Amelogenesis; Molar; Prevalence
PubMed: 37210809
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2023.105716