-
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients... (Review)
Review
The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients were assessed. A systematic scoping review of observational studies and trials was established in conjunction with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIELO, Web of Science, and LILACS databases were reviewed along with the gray literature. The primary electronic examination produced 139 investigations. Finally, four observational studies met the selection criteria. These studies evaluated 214 implants in 168 patients. and mainly presented high resistance to tetracycline, metronidazole, and erythromycin in PI patients. Similarly, was also highly resistant to clindamycin and doxycycline. Other microorganisms such as , , and also presented significant levels of resistance to other antibiotics including amoxicillin, azithromycin, and moxifloxacin. However, most microorganisms did not show resistance to the combination amoxicillin metronidazole. Although the management of adjunctive antimicrobials in the therapy of PI is controversial, in this review, the resistance of relevant microorganisms to antibiotics used to treat PI, and usually prescribed in dentistry, was observed. Clinicians should consider the antibiotic resistance demonstrated in the treatment of PI patients and its public health consequences.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Fusobacterium nucleatum; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Amoxicillin; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36497685
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315609 -
European Journal of Preventive... Jul 2018Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of POC use on cardiometabolic outcomes including venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Methods and results Nineteen observational studies (seven cohort and 12 case-control) were included in this systematic review. Of those, nine studies reported the risk of venous thromboembolism, six reported the risk of myocardial infarction, six reported the risk of stroke, three reported the risk of hypertension and two studies reported the risk of developing diabetes with POC use. The pooled adjusted relative risks (RRs) for venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and stroke for oral POC users versus non-users based on the random effects model were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.62), 0.98 (95% CI 0.66-1.47) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.72-1.44), respectively. Stratified analysis by route of administration showed that injectable POC with a RR of 2.62 (95% CI 1.74-3.94), but not oral POCs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.7-1.62), was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. A decreased risk of venous thromboembolism in a subgroup of women using an intrauterine levonorgestrel device was observed with a RR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.32-0.89). No effect of POC use on blood pressure was found, but there was an indication for an increased risk of diabetes with injectable POCs, albeit non-significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that oral POC use is not associated with an increased risk of developing various cardiometabolic outcomes, whereas injectable POC use might increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cardiovascular Diseases; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Injections; Middle Aged; Progestins; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Venous Thromboembolism; Young Adult
PubMed: 29745237
DOI: 10.1177/2047487318774847 -
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy Feb 2022The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker...
BACKGROUND
The NIA-AA research framework proposes a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This implies that AD can be diagnosed based on biomarker abnormalities, irrespective of clinical manifestation. While this brings opportunities, it also raises challenges. We aimed to provide an overview of considerations regarding the disclosure of AD pathology before the onset of dementia.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection (on 10 December 2020) for references on conveying AD biomarker results to individuals without dementia. Our query combined variations on the terms Alzheimer's disease, disclosure, or diagnosis, preclinical or prodromal, and biomarkers. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting 6860 titles and abstracts for eligibility and examined 162 full-text records for relevance. We included theoretical articles in English, on communicating amyloid and/or tau results to individuals with mild cognitive impairment, subjective cognitive decline, or normal cognition. MAXQDA-software was used for inductive data analysis.
RESULTS
We included 27 publications. From these, we extracted 26 unique considerations, which we grouped according to their primary relevance to a clinical, personal, or societal context. Clinical considerations included (lack of) validity, utility, and disclosure protocols. Personal considerations covered psychological and behavioral implications, as well as the right to (not) know. Finally, societal considerations comprised the risk of misconception, stigmatization, and discrimination. Overall, views were heterogeneous and often contradictory, with emphasis on harmful effects.
CONCLUSIONS
We found 26 diverse and opposing considerations, related to a clinical, personal, or societal context, which are relevant to diagnosing AD before dementia. The theoretical literature tended to focus on adverse impact and rely on common morality, while the motivation for and implications of biomarker testing are deeply personal. Our findings provide a starting point for clinicians to discuss biomarker-based diagnosis with their patients, which will become even more relevant in light of the conditional approval of a first disease-modifying drug for AD.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid; Biomarkers; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dementia; Disease Progression; Humans
PubMed: 35144684
DOI: 10.1186/s13195-022-00971-3 -
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular... 2022Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone loss. Without proper control of PiM, the reversible inflammation may advance to peri-implantitis (PI). Mechanical debridement (MD) by the implant surface is the most common and conventional nonsurgical approach to treat PiM but with limitations in complete resolution of diseases. For more than a decade, chlorhexidine (CHX) and active compounds has been investigated in the treatment of PiM. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of CHX treatment in combination with MD versus MD alone or MD+placebo in patients with PiM on their oral health problems.
METHODS
A search using electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search up to May 2022 were performed independently by 2 reviewers and included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD+CHX versus MD alone or MD+placebo. The assessment of quality for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Disease resolution of PiM (absence of BOP), IPPD reduction, IBOP% reduction, and PI% reduction after treatment as primary outcomes were selected as the primary outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was for dichotomous outcomes using random effect models. This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020221989).
RESULTS
After independent screening, nine eligible studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed OR of disease resolution between test and control groups amounted to 1.41 (95% CI (0.43, 4.65), = 0.57, = 65%) not favoring adjunctive CHX treatment over MD alone. Through subgroup analysis, the results indicated that oral irrigation of CHX may have more benefits on the resolution of PiM. Similarly, CHX did not significantly improve IPPD reduction at both short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Only a short-term effect has been observed at IBOP% reduction (WMD = 13.88, 95% CI (10.94, 16.81), < 0.00001, = 9%), IPI reduction (WMD = 0.12, 95% CI (0.09, 0.14), < 0.00001, = 0%), and FMPPD reduction (WMD = 0.19 mm, 95% CI (0.03, 0.35), = 0.02, = 0%) with adjunctive CHX application.
CONCLUSION
Adjunctive CHX application may have some benefits to improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment by reducing IBOP%, IPI, and FMPPD in short-term. But these benefits disappeared at medium- and long-term follow-up. In order to achieve better disease resolution of PiM, adjunctive CHX irrigation with MD may be suggested and has positive potential. Well-designed large clinical trials are needed in future.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Humans; Mucositis; Oral Health; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 36065438
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2312784 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the implant level and 24% at the patient level. The benefits of adjuvant metronidazole are controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs according to PRISMA and PICOS was performed with an electronic search over the last 10 years in MEDLINE (PubMed), WOS, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.4.1, based on mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals; the random-effects model was selected, and the threshold for statistical significance was defined as < 0.05. A total of 38 studies were collected and five were selected. Finally, one of the studies was eliminated because of unanalyzable results. All studies reached a high methodological quality. A total of 289 patients were studied with follow-up periods from 2 weeks to 1 year. Statistical significance was only found, with respect to the use of adjunctive metronidazole, in the pooled analysis of the studies ( = 0.02) and in the analysis of the radiographic values reported on peri-implant marginal bone levels, in the studies with a 3-month follow-up ( = 0.03). Discrepancies in the use of systemic metronidazole require long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the role of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Bias
PubMed: 37287463
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1149055 -
Dentistry Journal Jun 2023This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence in the literature regarding the association of propolis with controlled delivery systems (DDSs) and its... (Review)
Review
This systematic review synthesizes the existing evidence in the literature regarding the association of propolis with controlled delivery systems (DDSs) and its potential therapeutic action in dental medicine. Two independent reviewers performed a literature search up to 1 June 2023 in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, to identify the eligible studies. Clinical, in situ, and in vitro studies that investigated the incorporation of propolis as the main agent in DDSs for dental medicine were included in this study. Review articles, clinical cases, theses, dissertations, conference abstracts, and studies that had no application in dentistry were excluded. A total of 2019 records were initially identified. After carefully examining 21 full-text articles, 12 in vitro studies, 4 clinical, 1 animal model, and 3 in vivo and in vitro studies were included (n = 21). Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed qualitatively. The use of propolis has been reported in cariology, endodontics, periodontics, stomatology, and dental implants. Propolis has shown non-cytotoxic, osteoinductive, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Moreover, propolis can be released from DDS for prolonged periods, presenting biocompatibility, safety, and potential advantage for applications in dental medicine.
PubMed: 37504228
DOI: 10.3390/dj11070162 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Feb 2024The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and success of dental implants. This review aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjuvant therapy option for managing peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases (no time limitation). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS
Of 322 eligible articles, 14 studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity and poor quality of the articles reviewed prevented a meta-analysis. The reviewed articles used a light source (60 s, 1 session) with a wavelength of 635 to 810 nm for optimal tissue penetration. These studies showed improved clinical parameters such as probing depth, bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index after aPDT treatment. However, in smokers, BOP increased after aPDT. Compared to conventional therapy, aPDT had a longer-term antimicrobial effect and reduced periopathogens like Porphyromonas gingivalis, as well as inflammatory factors such as Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α). No undesired side effects were reported in the studies.
CONCLUSION
Although the reviewed articles had limitations, aPDT showed effectiveness in improving peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis. It is recommended as an adjunctive strategy for managing peri‑implant diseases, but further high-quality research is needed for efficacy and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Photochemotherapy; Peri-Implantitis; Mucositis; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Infective Agents
PubMed: 38278339
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.103990 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections.... (Review)
Review
Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently prescribed by dentists performing dental implant surgery to avoid premature implant failure and postoperative infections. The scientific literature suggests that a single preoperative dose suffices to reduce the risk of early dental implant failure in healthy patients. A systematic review was made based on an electronic literature search in the PubMed-Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Open Gray databases. The review addressed the question: "which antibiotic prophylaxis regimens are being used in dental implant surgery in healthy patients according to survey-based studies?" The identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion phases were conducted according to the PRISMA statement by two independent reviewers. The following data were collected: country, number of surveyed dentists, number of dentists who responded (n), response rate, routine prescription of antibiotic prophylactic treatment (yes, no, or conditioned prescription), prescription regimen (preoperative, perioperative or postoperative) and antibiotic choice (first and second choice). Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) evaluated the level of agreement between the two reviewers. The analysis of risk of bias was performed follow the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for observational studies. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate total target sample, sample size and total mean. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 12 were included in the analysis. Two thousand and seventy-seven dentists from nine different countries on three continents were surveyed. The median response rate was low and disparate between studies. About three-quarters of the surveyed dentists claimed to routinely prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery. The prescription regimen was perioperative, postoperative and preoperative, in decreasing order of frequency. The most frequent first choice drug was amoxicillin, with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as second choice. A majority of dentists from different countries do not prescribe systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery following the available scientific evidence and could be overprescribing. Efforts are needed by dental educators and professionals to reduce the gap between the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant surgery as supported by the scientific evidence and what is being done by clinicians in actual practice.
PubMed: 33643035
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.588333 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2022: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. : Three electronic... (Review)
Review
: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. : Three electronic databases (, , and ) were searched until August 2022 to identify relevant articles. The inclusion criteria consisted in human clinical studies that reported the use of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) in surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and for non-RCTs ROBINS-I tool. : Clinical studies included were published between 2012 and 2022 and consisted of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for non-surgical therapy and two RCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective case series in surgical therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patients' characteristics and assessment of peri-implant therapy, statistical analysis could not be achieved. : The use of EMD indicated a positive effect on both surgical and non-surgical therapy. However, the available literature is scarce, with low evidence in non-surgical approach and modest evidence in surgical approach using EMD. More RCTs with standardize protocols are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of using EMD in both therapies.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Research Design; Bias
PubMed: 36557021
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58121819 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022The use of herbal products in oral cavity has shown an increased popularity and potential benefits due to their additional anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of herbal products in oral cavity has shown an increased popularity and potential benefits due to their additional anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties as well as the lack of side effects related to their use.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical effectiveness of herbal dental products (mouthwash, dentifrice, gel) when compared to conventional products or placebo in periodontitis patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review with 22 studies was carried out using MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases in addition to hand searches. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effect of any herbal dental product and compared it with conventional products or placebo in periodontitis patients and published up to March 2022, were screened.
RESULTS
Herbal products used as adjuncts to scaling and root planing (SRP) or supragingival debridement (SPD) led to superior clinical outcomes than placebo or no adjuncts (8 studies). In conjunction with SRP, these products showed comparable outcomes with chlorhexidine (6 studies) or better (4 studies). When used as adjuncts to SPD, herbal oral care products demonstrated comparable outcomes with chlorhexidine and conventional products (4 studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review, herbal oral care products may play a key role in the management of periodontal disease. Further well-designed studies are needed to establish their efficacy.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Chronic Periodontitis; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontitis; Root Planing; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36011693
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610061