-
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2016We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors.
DATA
Trials on humans with ≥1 MIH molar/incisor reporting on various treatments were included. Two authors independently searched and extracted records. Sample-size-weighted annual failure rates were estimated where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar) were screened, and hand searches and cross-referencing performed.
STUDY SELECTION
Fourteen (mainly observational) studies were included. Ten trials (381 participants) investigated MIH-molars, four (139) MIH-incisors. For molars, remineralization, restorative or extraction therapies had been assessed. For restorative approaches, mean (SD) annual failure rates were highest for fissure sealants (12[6]%) and glass-ionomer restorations (12[2]%), and lowest for indirect restorations (1[3]%), preformed metal crowns (1.3 [2.1]%) and composite restorations (4[3]%). Ony study assessed extraction of molars in young patients (median age 8.2 years), the majority of them without malocclusions, but third molars in development. Spontaneous alignment of second molars was more frequent in the maxilla (55%) than the mandible (47%). For incisors, desensitizing agents successfully managed hypersensitivity. Micro-abrasion and composite veneers improved aesthetics.
CONCLUSIONS
Few, mainly moderate to high-risk-studies investigated treatment of MIH. Remineralization or sealants seem suitable for MIH-molars with limited severity and/or hypersensitivity. For severe cases, restorations with composites or indirect restorations or preformed metal crowns seem suitable. Prior to tooth extraction as last resort factors like the presence of a general malocclusion, patients' age and the status of neighboring teeth should be considered. No recommendations can be given for MIH-incisors.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Dentists need to consider the specific condition of each tooth and the needs and expectations of patients when deciding how to manage MIH. Strong recommendations are not possible based on the current evidence.
Topics: Dental Calculus; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Maxilla; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 27693779
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.012 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched up until December 2018. The manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and relevant journals. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between T2DM and periodontitis were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using STATA.
RESULTS
A total of 53 observational studies were included. The Adjusted T2DM prevalence was significantly higher in periodontitis patients (OR = 4.04, p = 0.000), and vice versa (OR = 1.58, p = 0.000). T2DM patients had significantly worse periodontal status, as reflected in a 0.61 mm deeper periodontal pocket, a 0.89 mm higher attachment loss and approximately 2 more lost teeth (all p = 0.000), than those without T2DM. The results of the cohort studies found that T2DM could elevate the risk of developing periodontitis by 34% (p = 0.002). The glycemic control of T2DM patients might result in different periodontitis outcomes. Severe periodontitis increased the incidence of T2DM by 53% (p = 0.000), and this result was stable. In contrast, the impact of mild periodontitis on T2DM incidence (RR = 1.28, p = 0.007) was less robust.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an evident bidirectional relationship between T2DM and periodontitis. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm this finding. Our results suggest that both dentists and physicians need to be aware of the strong connection between periodontitis and T2DM. Controlling these two diseases might help prevent each other's incidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis
PubMed: 32652980
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01180-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). 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, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Jun 2020The aim of this review is to quantify the prevalence and type of malocclusion among children and adolescents during the different stages of dentition worldwide. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this review is to quantify the prevalence and type of malocclusion among children and adolescents during the different stages of dentition worldwide.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Recent studies (from 2009 to 2019), published in Medline, Web of Science and Embase and orthodontic text-books have been comprehensively reviewed herein. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using STROBE criteria.
RESULTS
After screening 450 records and analysing 284 relevant full-text publications, 77 studies were included in this review. A good degree of evidence was obtained due to the medium-high methodological quality level of included studies. The worldwide prevalence of malocclusion was 56% (95% CI: 11-99), without differences in gender. The highest prevalence was in Africa (81%) and Europe (72%), followed by America (53%) and Asia (48%). The malocclusion prevalence score did not change from primary to permanent dentition with a common score of 54%. Malocclusion traits such as Angle's classes, overjet, overbite, and asymmetrical midline shift essentially did not change their prevalence during different dentitions. Conversely, traits such as cross-bite and diastema reduced their prevalence during permanent dentition, while scissor-bite and dental crowding increased their scores.
CONCLUSION
The worldwide high prevalence of malocclusion and its early onset during childhood should induce policymakers as well as paediatric physicians and dentists to devise policies and adopt clinical strategies for preventing malocclusion since younger children's ages.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Dentition; Europe; Humans; Malocclusion; Overbite; Prevalence
PubMed: 32567942
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.02.05 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Jul 2015Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in relation to clinical outcomes. The purpose of this new guideline is to replace the previous and update recommendations for the use of OAs in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and snoring.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM) commissioned a seven-member task force. A systematic review of the literature was performed and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the quality of evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of the evidence counterbalanced by an assessment of the relative benefit of the treatment versus the potential harms. The AASM and AADSM Board of Directors approved the final guideline recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that sleep physicians prescribe oral appliances, rather than no therapy, for adult patients who request treatment of primary snoring (without obstructive sleep apnea). (STANDARD) 2. When oral appliance therapy is prescribed by a sleep physician for an adult patient with obstructive sleep apnea, we suggest that a qualified dentist use a custom, titratable appliance over non-custom oral devices. (GUIDELINE) 3. We recommend that sleep physicians consider prescription of oral appliances, rather than no treatment, for adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are intolerant of CPAP therapy or prefer alternate therapy. (STANDARD) 4. We suggest that qualified dentists provide oversight—rather than no follow-up—of oral appliance therapy in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea, to survey for dental-related side effects or occlusal changes and reduce their incidence. (GUIDELINE) 5. We suggest that sleep physicians conduct follow-up sleep testing to improve or confirm treatment efficacy, rather than conduct follow-up without sleep testing, for patients fitted with oral appliances. (GUIDELINE) 6. We suggest that sleep physicians and qualified dentists instruct adult patients treated with oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnea to return for periodic office visits—as opposed to no follow-up—with a qualified dentist and a sleep physician. (GUIDELINE).
CONCLUSIONS
The AASM and AADSM expect these guidelines to have a positive impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and, possibly, health care costs. This guideline reflects the state of knowledge at the time of publication and will require updates if new evidence warrants significant changes to the current recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mandibular Advancement; Middle Aged; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Polysomnography; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26094920
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.4858 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021This work provides a narrative review covering evidence-based recommendations for pericoronitis management (Part A) and a systematic review of antibiotic prescribing for... (Review)
Review
A Review of Evidence-Based Recommendations for Pericoronitis Management and a Systematic Review of Antibiotic Prescribing for Pericoronitis among Dentists: Inappropriate Pericoronitis Treatment Is a Critical Factor of Antibiotic Overuse in Dentistry.
This work provides a narrative review covering evidence-based recommendations for pericoronitis management (Part A) and a systematic review of antibiotic prescribing for pericoronitis from January 2000 to May 2021 (Part B). Part A presents the most recent, clinically significant, and evidence-based guidance for pericoronitis diagnosis and proper treatment recommending the local therapy over antibiotic prescribing, which should be reserved for severe conditions. The systematic review includes publications analyzing sets of patients treated for pericoronitis and questionnaires that identified dentists' therapeutic approaches to pericoronitis. Questionnaires among dentists revealed that almost 75% of them prescribed antibiotics for pericoronitis, and pericoronitis was among the top 4 in the frequency of antibiotic use within the surveyed diagnoses and situations. Studies involving patients showed that antibiotics were prescribed to more than half of the patients with pericoronitis, and pericoronitis was among the top 2 in the frequency of antibiotic use within the monitored diagnoses and situations. The most prescribed antibiotics for pericoronitis were amoxicillin and metronidazole. The systematic review results show abundant and unnecessary use of antibiotics for pericoronitis and are in strong contrast to evidence-based recommendations summarized in the narrative review. Adherence of dental professionals to the recommendations presented in this work can help rapidly reduce the duration of pericoronitis, prevent its complications, and reduce the use of antibiotics and thus reduce its impact on patients' quality of life, healthcare costs, and antimicrobial resistance development.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dentistry; Dentists; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Pericoronitis; Practice Patterns, Dentists'; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34202699
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136796 -
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 -
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 2017Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). 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 (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zirconium
PubMed: 29261853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2