-
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Jul 2017To examine whether the RA MRI score (RAMRIS) for RA of the wrist/hand meets the OMERACT filter criteria-truth (validity), discrimination and feasibility. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether the RA MRI score (RAMRIS) for RA of the wrist/hand meets the OMERACT filter criteria-truth (validity), discrimination and feasibility.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and Scopus, from 1970 through June 2014, focused on MRI measures of synovitis, osteitis/bone marrow oedema, erosions and/or joint space narrowing in RA randomized controlled trials and observational studies with cohort size ⩾10. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook criteria.
RESULTS
Of 634 MRI titles/abstracts, 202 met the review criteria, with 92 providing at least 1 type of validity. Four articles provided criterion validity, and 26 articles utilized RAMRIS to assess 1.5 T MRI images. Histopathology data showed inflammation corresponding to MRI of synovitis and osteitis. MRI erosions corresponded to those identified with CT. Content and construct validity for RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions were documented by correlations with clinical, laboratory and/or radiographic data. Each measure was sensitive to change and responsive to therapy. RAMRIS synovitis and osteitis were able to discriminate between the efficacy of treatments vs placebo in 12-week studies, whereas RAMRIS erosions required studies of ⩾24 weeks.
CONCLUSION
RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and erosions imaged with 1.5 T MRI are valid and useful for evaluating joint inflammation and damage for RA of the wrist/hand, according to the OMERACT filter.
Topics: Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Middle Aged; Observer Variation; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28398508
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew445 -
Cureus Jul 2023Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive... (Review)
Review
Mandibular third-molar extraction is a frequently executed minor oral surgical procedure, with a subsequent recovery period lasting several days. Typically, preemptive administration of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and steroids has been employed, resulting in a notable decrease in postoperative complications like pain, facial swelling, trismus, and alveolar osteitis. This systematic review's primary goal was to investigate the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with dexamethasone and diclofenac in minimizing the post-surgical complications following the surgical extraction of the mandibular third molars. The systematic search was carried out to identify relevant literature in digital databases including PubMed®, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 1990 to January 2022. The search used specific keywords. The randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of dexamethasone and diclofenac or dexamethasone alone compared to diclofenac or placebo as preemptive analgesics were considered inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Case reports, literature reviews, letters to the editor, and non-English publications were not included. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts, and articles fulfilling the study criteria were included. After reading the full text and data collection, analysis was performed. The included article's bias was evaluated by the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. A digital database search yielded a total of 207 articles. After excluding duplicates and articles written in languages other than English, 90 were removed. Based on the title and abstract, out of 177, 95 studies were excluded. After full-text reading of 22 articles, 17 were eliminated because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining five studies were found eligible and included in the systematic review. Four studies were of low risk, while one study had some concerns. Two studies evaluated the combination of dexamethasone with diclofenac, while three evaluated dexamethasone alone. Total samples included samples of 436 third-molar surgeries in 420 patients. There was a substantial decrease in the mean pain score and swelling measurement when diclofenac alone was compared with coadministration of diclofenac and dexamethasone. Preemptive administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac has been shown to effectively reduce pain and facial swelling, with the exception of trismus, in third-molar surgeries when compared to diclofenac alone. As a result, it is recommended to administer these drugs prior to the commencement of third-molar extraction. However, further research is mandatory, specifically good quality randomized controlled trials involving large cohorts, in order to assess any significant variations and validate these findings.
PubMed: 37654946
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42709 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2017Dry socket is one of the most common complications that develops after the extraction of a permanent tooth, and its prevention is more effective than its treatment. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Dry socket is one of the most common complications that develops after the extraction of a permanent tooth, and its prevention is more effective than its treatment.
OBJECTIVES
Analyze the efficacy of different methods used in preventing dry socket in order to decrease its incidence after tooth extraction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A Cochrane and PubMed-MEDLINE database search was conducted with the search terms "dry socket", "prevention", "risk factors", "alveolar osteitis" and "fibrynolitic alveolitis", both individually and using the Boolean operator "AND". The inclusion criteria were: clinical studies including at least 30 patients, articles published from 2005 to 2015 and written in English. The exclusion criteria were case reports and nonhuman studies.
RESULTS
30 publications were selected from a total of 250. Six of the 30 were excluded after reading the full text. The final review included 24 articles: 9 prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies and 13 clinical trials. They were stratified according to their level of scientific evidence using SIGN criteria (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network).
CONCLUSIONS
All treatments included in the review were aimed at decreasing the incidence of dry socket. Locally administering chlorhexidine or applying platelet-rich plasma reduces the likelihood of developing this complication. Antibiotic prescription does not avoid postoperative complications after lower third molar surgery. With regard to risk factors, all of the articles selected suggest that patient age, history of previous infection and the difficulty of the extraction are the most common predisposing factors for developing dry socket. There is no consensus that smoking, gender or menstrual cycles are risk factors. Taking the scientific quality of the articles evaluated into account, a level B recommendation has been given for the proposed-procedures in the prevention of dry socket.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29053647
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21705 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Aug 2017The true benefit of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) for enhancing the healing of postextraction sites is still a matter of debate, and in recent years several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The true benefit of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) for enhancing the healing of postextraction sites is still a matter of debate, and in recent years several clinical trials have addressed this issue. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an APC adjunct in the preservation of fresh extraction sockets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed on Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only controlled clinical trials or randomized clinical trials were included. Selected articles underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were complications and adverse events, discomfort and quality of life, bone healing and remodeling assessed by histologic and radiographic techniques, and soft tissue healing.
RESULTS
Thirty-three comparative studies were included. Nine articles had a parallel design and 24 had a split-mouth design. Twenty studies were considered to have a low risk of bias and 13 were considered to have a high risk. Overall, 1,193 teeth were extracted from 911 patients. Meta-analysis showed that soft tissue healing, probing depth at 3 months, and bone density at 1, 3, and 6 months were statistically better for the APC group. Qualitative analysis suggested that APCs might be associated with a decrease in swelling and trismus. However, no relevant difference among groups was found for probing depth at 1 month, incidence of alveolar osteitis, acute inflammation or infection, percentage of new bone, and indirect measurement of bone metabolism.
CONCLUSION
APCs should be used in postextraction sites to improve clinical and radiographic outcomes such as bone density and soft tissue healing and postoperative symptoms. The actual benefit of APCs on decreasing pain in extraction sockets is still not quantifiable.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing; Young Adult
PubMed: 28288724
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.02.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.Most studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Participant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.Bisphosphonates versus placeboBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).There was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.Results regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Bisphosphonates versus active comparatorMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).Intensive versus symptomatic treatmentThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.Inconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.
Topics: Aged; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteitis Deformans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004956.pub3 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2023Our objective was to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, available evidence on the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX)...
Our objective was to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, available evidence on the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) when applied after oral surgery on wound healing and related clinical parameters. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published before January 2023. The quality of the methodology used in primary-level studies was assessed using the RoB2 tool; meta-analyses were performed jointly with heterogeneity and small-study effect analyses. Thirty-three studies and 4766 cases were included. The results point out that the application of CHX was significantly more effective, compared to controls where CHX was not employed, providing better wound healing after oral surgery (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.55-0.80, < 0.001). Stratified meta-analyses confirmed the higher efficacy of 0.20% CHX gel vs. other vehicles and concentrations ( < 0.001, respectively). Likewise, the addition of chitosan to CHX significantly increased the efficacy of surgical wound healing ( < 0.001). The use of CHX has also been significantly beneficial in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after any type of dental extraction (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.39-0.53, < 0.001) and has also been effective when applied as a gel for a reduction in pain after the surgical extraction of third molars (MD = -0.97, 95% CI = -1.26 to -0.68, < 0.001). In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate on the basis of evidence that the application of CHX exerts a beneficial effect on wound healing after oral surgical procedures, significantly decreasing the patient's risk of developing surgical complications and/or poor wound healing. This benefit was greater when CHX was used at 0.20% in gel form with the addition of chitosan.
PubMed: 37887254
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12101552 -
BMC Oral Health May 2017Alveolar osteitis is a very painful and distressing condition for a patient who has recently undergone a tooth extraction and has led dental professionals to search for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis is a very painful and distressing condition for a patient who has recently undergone a tooth extraction and has led dental professionals to search for preventive measures. The aim of this meta-analysis to determine the effect of chlorhexidine (CHX) gel on the incidence of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction.
METHODS
Studies were searched for on electronic search engines using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane central, Scopus and advanced Google Scholar from May 2015 to December 2015. Randomized controlled trial studies with a history of mandibular third molar extraction, along with the administration of topical chlorhexidine gel were included. The risk of bias of the selected articles was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. RevMan 5.3 Software was used to analyze the pooled effect. I was calculated to determine heterogeneity and a funnel plot was used to check the risk of bias. Subgroup analysis was also done based on the presence of confounding factors (smoking, oral contraceptive etc.) and on split mouth design.
RESULTS
Out of 52 articles, ten met the inclusion criteria. 862 participants were involved in the selected studies with a mean age range from 24.15 ± 5.02 to 36.65 ± 11. The overall RR was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.58, p < 0.00001). Three studies used a split-mouth design to check the effect of chlorhexidine gel in the prevention of alveolar osteitis incidence. There was a pooled effect of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.50) for the intervention group in the split mouth design studies. A stratified analysis was done to check the effect of CHX gel in patients with confounding factors and a significant reduction of AO incidence was found; 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.87; p = 0.05) in the intervention. There was no reported adverse reaction. The heterogeneity (I) was 40%. The funnel plot showed that there was no significant publication bias.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that CHX gel is superior to a placebo in reducing the incidence of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar extraction.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Gels; Humans; Mandible; Molar, Third; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 28526078
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0376-3 -
Australian Dental Journal Jun 2021Extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M) close to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) has a higher risk of neurological disturbance. This review aims to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M) close to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) has a higher risk of neurological disturbance. This review aims to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of the coronectomy technique compared to complete extraction for such M3Ms. Case studies by a specialist oral and maxillofacial surgeon are included to illustrate clinical practice.
METHODS
Three databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed) were searched (November 2020). Additional articles were sought by hand searching the reference list of included articles. All studies published in English comparing outcomes of coronectomy with complete extraction with at least 50 subjects and 6 months follow-up were included.
RESULTS
Of the six included studies, five reported a lower rate of IAN disturbance after coronectomy compared with complete extraction. There were no reported cases of lingual nerve disturbance. Other outcomes of coronectomy such as pain, infection, alveolar osteitis were either similar or lower compared to complete extraction. There were high rates of root migration but low rates of exposure and reoperation. Follow-up protocols varied considerably.
CONCLUSIONS
There is medium quality evidence to support the option of coronectomy for high risk M3M cases. Further studies to develop follow-up protocols to assist general dental practice is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Mandible; Mandibular Nerve; Molar, Third; Tooth Crown; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Trigeminal Nerve Injuries
PubMed: 33486775
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12825 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Feb 2023Chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) is a rare inflammatory bone disease. The distinct CNO subtype that affects the anterior chest wall is descriptively named... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) is a rare inflammatory bone disease. The distinct CNO subtype that affects the anterior chest wall is descriptively named sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis (SCCH) and mainly occurs in adults. Literature on CNO/SCCH is scattered and lacks diagnostic and therapeutic consensus.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to characterize clinical presentation and therapeutic modalities applied in adult CNO/SCCH patients. Untransformed numerical data and double-arcsine transformed proportional data were pooled in a random effects model in R-4.0.5; proportions were reported with 95% CI.
RESULTS
Forty studies were included, containing data on 2030 and 642 patients for aim 1 and 2, respectively. A female predisposition (67%, 95% CI 60, 73) and major diagnostic delay (5 years 95% CI 3, 7) were noted. Clinical presentation included chest pain (89%, 95% CI 79, 96) and swelling (79%, 95% CI 62, 91). Patients suffered from pustulosis palmoplantaris (53%, 95% CI 37, 68), arthritis (24%, 95% CI 11, 39) and acne (8%, 95% CI 4, 13). Inflammatory markers were inconsistently elevated. Autoantibody and HLA-B27 prevalence was normal, and histopathology unspecific. Increased isotope uptake (99%, 95% CI 96, 100) was a consistent imaging finding. Among manifold treatments, pamidronate and biologicals yielded good response in 83%, 95% CI 60, 98 and 56%, 95% CI 26, 85, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CNO/SCCH literature proves heterogeneous regarding diagnostics and treatment. Timely diagnosis is challenging and mainly follows from increased isotope uptake on nuclear examination. Biopsies, autoantibodies and HLA status are non-contributory, and biochemical inflammation only variably detected. Based on reported data, bisphosphonates and biologicals seem reasonably effective, but due to limitations in design and heterogeneity between studies the precise magnitude of their effect is uncertain. Fundamentally, international consensus seems imperative to advance clinical care for CNO/SCCH.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Acquired Hyperostosis Syndrome; Delayed Diagnosis; Osteomyelitis; Psoriasis
PubMed: 35961032
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac443 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Oct 2021This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in mandibular third molar extraction and provide suggestions for alleviating postoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in mandibular third molar extraction and provide suggestions for alleviating postoperative complications.
METHODS
Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SinoMed were searched electronically on February 2020. Randomized controlled trials focusing on PRF usage in mandibular third molar extraction were included. Reviewers assessed the risk of bias in the included literature and extracted data independently using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included, comprising 991 patients who had mandibular third molar extraction. The topical application of PRF effectively reduced pain after extraction [MD=-12.06, 95%CI (-21.42, -2.71), =0.01], attenuated post-extraction swelling [MD=-1.42, 95%CI (-2.41, -0.44), =0.005], and promoted soft tissue hea-ling [MD=0.66, 95%CI (0.34, 0.99), <0.000 1]. PRF significantly reduced trismus and alveolar osteitis (<0.05). However, data could not prove whether PRF has any significant positive effect on bone healing compared with the control group (>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Limited clinical evidence indicates that applying PRF after mandibular third molar extraction could reduce pain, swelling, trismus and the occurrence of dry socket and promote soft tissue healing. However, the effect of PRF on bone healing requires further large-scale randomized controlled trials and unified measurement criteria.
Topics: Humans; Mandible; Molar, Third; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 34636211
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2021.05.017