-
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Jan 2023Recurrent Aphtous Stomatitis (RAS) is the most common process affecting the oral mucosa. It is painful, multifactorial and generally recurrent. The aim of this...
BACKGROUND
Recurrent Aphtous Stomatitis (RAS) is the most common process affecting the oral mucosa. It is painful, multifactorial and generally recurrent. The aim of this systematic review is to know the last treatment approaches and their effectivity.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
we compared the outcome of different kind of treatments in terms of the improvement of the lesions, reduction of the size of those lesions and the time needed for their healing. Inclusion criteria were: clinical trials, articles written in English or Spanish and published less than 5 years ago.
RESULTS
we used the following keywords: "treatment", "aphtous stomatitis", "canker sores"; combined with Boolean operators AND y OR. We selected 28 articles for reading the whole text, and after applying the eligibility criteria, we selected 17 articles for our revision. Among all the treatments, we emphasize the barrier method based in compound of cellulose rubber and a calcium/sodium copolymer PVM/MA, with which the difference in the 3rd and 7th day was of -6,29 ± 0,14 points in the pain score. The treatment with insulin and chitosan gel, brought a pain suppression on the third day, with no reactivation of the pain during the whole study. The application of a film composed of polyurethane and sesame oil with chitosan, brought a reduction in the size of the lesions of 4,54 ± 2,84mm on the 6th day compared with the situation before the beginning of the treatment. The different kinds of laser, which produced a reduction in the pain score just at the beginning of the treatment up to 8,1 ± 1,6 points, and a reduction of the size of the lesions of 4,42 ± 1,02mm on the 7th day.
CONCLUSIONS
Besides the classic treatments for RAS, we have to take into account other treatment modalities, above all the different kinds of laser.
Topics: Humans; Chitosan; Stomatitis, Aphthous; Stomatitis; Mouth Mucosa; Pain
PubMed: 36173717
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25604 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2023The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of orthodontic treatment with altered biomechanics in periodontally compromised dentition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases "PubMed" and "DIMDI" using the keywords "aggressive periodontitis AND ortho*," "aggressive periodontitis AND orthodontics," "chronic periodontitis AND ortho*," and "chronic periodontitis AND orthodontics" for the publication period from January 1990 to July 2022. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the selected trade journals "Community Dental Health," "European Journal of Oral Sciences," and "Parodontologie." Human clinical trials were included, whereas animal experimental studies, case reports, and reviews were generally excluded. The appropriate studies were selected, and the relevant data was tabulated according to different parameters, regarding the study design, the study structure, and the conduct of the study.
RESULTS
A total of 1067 articles were found in the preliminary electronic search. The manual search and review of all related bibliographies resulted in an additional 1591 hits. After the first screening, 43 articles were classified as potentially relevant and reviewed in their original form. After the suitability test, 5 studies with a total of 366 participants were included in the final evaluation. These included one randomized controlled trial and four low-evidence intervention studies. The studies were conducted in two university hospitals and three private practices. All participants underwent scaling and root plaining and periodontal surgery before the orthodontic treatment started. Mean probing pocket depth reduction before and after the interdisciplinary treatment was analyzed in all the included studies; mean difference in clinical attachment level in four of the studies was also included. All participants were enrolled in a continuous recall system. In all studies, orthodontic therapy in periodontally compromised patients improved function and esthetics, resulting in lower probing depths and clinical attachment gains.
CONCLUSIONS
Orthodontic treatment can be used for patients with reduced periodontal support to stabilize clinical findings and improve function and esthetics. The prerequisite for this is a profound knowledge of altered biomechanics and an adapted interdisciplinary treatment approach. Due to the large heterogeneity of the included studies and their limited methodological quality, the results obtained in this review must be considered critically. Further randomized controlled long-term studies with comparable study designs are necessary to obtain reliable and reproducible treatment results.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Patients with periodontal impairment can be successfully treated with orthodontics as part of interdisciplinary therapy. Orthodontic treatment has no negative impact on the periodontium; if minimal, controlled forces are used under non-inflammatory conditions.
Topics: Humans; Aggressive Periodontitis; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Care; Esthetics, Dental; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36502508
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04822-1 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2022To assess the clinical evidence for professionally applied fluoride therapy to prevent and arrest caries in older adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical evidence for professionally applied fluoride therapy to prevent and arrest caries in older adults.
DATA/SOURCES
Two independent researchers searched the English literature published up to 31st Dec 2021 in five databases (PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for clinical trials with a comparison group on professionally applied fluoride therapy for caries prevention or arrest at older adults aged ≥60 years with any follow-up period. The outcomes were the mean difference in the number of new caries/caries-prevented fraction and caries arrest rate. The Cochrane guidelines were used for the risk of bias assessment.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
Five hundred and twenty-seven studies were identified, and seven studies were finally included. Five studies were rated as having 'low risk'. The root caries-prevented fraction of 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) solution, 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, and 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel were 25-71%, 64%, and 32%, respectively. Meta-analysis indicated a decrease in the number of new root caries by 0.55 (95% CI: 0.32-0.78; p < 0.001) and an overall proportion of arrested root caries of 42% (95% CI: 33% to 49%; p < 0.001) after receiving 38% SDF application at the 24-month follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the findings, 5% NaF varnish and 1.23% APF gel prevented root caries, whereas 38% SDF solution prevented and arrested root caries in older adults. More well-designed clinical trials should be conducted to investigate various methods in caries prevention and arrest in older adults.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Preventive measures effective in other age groups may not suit older adults, as caries type and associated risk factors vary. To date, no systematic review has evaluated professionally applied fluoride therapy in older adults. Evidence from clinical trials in older adults could aid clinical practice and public health measures. The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42022307025.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Acidulated Phosphate Fluoride; Cariostatic Agents; Dental Caries; Fluorides; Fluorides, Topical; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Root Caries; Silver Compounds; Sodium Fluoride
PubMed: 36058347
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104273 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2022To assess the beneficial and adverse effects on the dental and periodontal issues of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
AIM
To assess the beneficial and adverse effects on the dental and periodontal issues of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine databases were searched in April 2020 for randomized/non-randomized clinical studies. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, random-effect meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 30 randomized and non-randomized clinical studies including 914 patients (29.7% male; mean age 43.4 years) were identified. Orthodontic treatment of pathologically migrated teeth was associated with clinical attachment gain (-0.24 mm; seven studies), pocket probing depth reduction (-0.23 mm; seven studies), marginal bone gain (-0.36 mm; seven studies), and papilla height gain (-1.42 mm; two studies) without considerable adverse effects, while patient sex, gingival phenotype, baseline disease severity, interval between periodontal and orthodontic treatment, and orthodontic treatment duration affected the results. Greater marginal bone level gains were seen by additional circumferential fiberotomy (two studies; MD = -0.98 mm; 95% CI = -1.87 to -0.10 mm; p = .03), but the quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence of poor quality indicates that orthodontic treatment might be associated with small improvements of periodontal parameters, which do not seem to affect prognosis, but more research is needed.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Periodontitis
PubMed: 34327710
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13529 -
Australian Dental Journal Sep 2022It is unclear how effective tongue-tie classification assessment tools are in diagnosing symptomatic tongue-tie and fulfilling lingual frenectomy criteria. The purpose... (Review)
Review
It is unclear how effective tongue-tie classification assessment tools are in diagnosing symptomatic tongue-tie and fulfilling lingual frenectomy criteria. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine and evaluate any association between tongue-tie severity, as measured by pre-treatment assessment tools, and post-operative outcome following tongue-tie division. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane search engines were used to retrieve articles published between 1947 and 2021. Included studies consisted of patients with symptomatic tongue-tie, assessment by either the Coryllos, Kotlow, or Hazelbaker Assessment Tool for Lingual Frenulum Function (HATLFF) classification tool, and tongue-tie division. A total of 205 abstracts were identified; 31 studies met the criteria for a full-text review, of which, only 14 studies met the criteria for data extraction and analysis. Six studies used the HATLFF, 2 studies used the Kotlow, 5 studies used the Coryllos, and 1 study used a combination of both Kotlow and Coryllos methods. Significant heterogeneity was evident across all studies. No statistical correlation between the two variables could be determined. Although tongue-tie division procedures appear to provide benefits in breastfeeding and speech, there are no data to suggest a statistically significant association between the severity of tongue-tie, and the correct identification of patients who would benefit from tongue-tie division. © 2022 Australian Dental Association.
Topics: Ankyloglossia; Australia; Breast Feeding; Female; Humans; Lingual Frenum; Speech
PubMed: 35689515
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12921 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Jan 2023Involvement of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is common in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). TMJ arthritis can lead to orofacial symptoms, orofacial dysfunction,... (Review)
Review
Involvement of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is common in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). TMJ arthritis can lead to orofacial symptoms, orofacial dysfunction, and dentofacial deformity with negative impact on quality of life. Management involves interdisciplinary collaboration. No current recommendations exist to guide clinical management. We undertook this study to develop consensus-based interdisciplinary recommendations for management of orofacial manifestations of JIA, and to create a future research agenda related to management of TMJ arthritis in children with JIA. Recommendations were developed using online surveying of relevant stakeholders, systematic literature review, evidence-informed generation of recommendations during 2 consensus meetings, and Delphi study iterations involving external experts. The process included disciplines involved in the care of orofacial manifestations of JIA: pediatric rheumatology, radiology, orthodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orofacial pain specialists, and pediatric dentistry. Recommendations were accepted if agreement was >80% during a final Delphi study. Three overarching management principles and 12 recommendations for interdisciplinary management of orofacial manifestations of JIA were outlined. The 12 recommendations pertained to diagnosis (n = 4), treatment of TMJ arthritis (active TMJ inflammation) (n = 2), treatment of TMJ dysfunction and symptoms (n = 3), treatment of arthritis-related dentofacial deformity (n = 2), and other aspects related to JIA (n = 1). Additionally, a future interdisciplinary research agenda was developed. These are the first interdisciplinary recommendations to guide clinical management of TMJ JIA. The 3 overarching principles and 12 recommendations fill an important gap in current clinical practice. They emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management of orofacial manifestations of JIA.
Topics: Child; Humans; Arthritis, Juvenile; Dentofacial Deformities; Consensus; Quality of Life; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 36041065
DOI: 10.1002/art.42338 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias. For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 34929047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006386.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Without a phase of retention after successful orthodontic treatment, teeth tend to 'relapse', that is, to return to their initial position. Retention is achieved by fitting fixed or removable retainers to provide stability to the teeth while avoiding damage to teeth and gums. Removable retainers can be worn full- or part-time. Retainers vary in shape, material, and the way they are made. Adjunctive procedures are sometimes used to try to improve retention, for example, reshaping teeth where they contact ('interproximal reduction'), or cutting fibres around teeth ('percision'). This review is an update of one originally published in 2004 and last updated in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of different retainers and retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and OpenGrey up to 27 April 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adults who had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken to prevent relapse following orthodontic treatment with braces. We excluded studies with aligners.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Outcomes were stability or relapse of tooth position, retainer failure (i.e. broken, detached, worn out, ill-fitting or lost), adverse effects on teeth and gums (i.e. plaque, gingival and bleeding indices), and participant satisfaction. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous data, risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) for dichotomous data, and hazard ratios (HR) for survival data, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses when similar studies reported outcomes at the same time point; otherwise results were reported as mean ranges. We prioritised reporting of Little's Irregularity Index (crookedness of anterior teeth) to measure relapse, judging the minimum important difference to be 1 mm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies, with 4377 participants. The studies evaluated: removable versus fixed retainers (8 studies); different types of fixed retainers (22 studies) or bonding materials (3 studies); and different types of removable retainers (16 studies). Four studies evaluated more than one comparison. We judged 28 studies to have high risk of bias, 11 to have low risk, and eight studies as unclear. We focused on 12-month follow-up. The evidence is low or very low certainty. Most comparisons and outcomes were evaluated in only one study at high risk of bias, and most studies measured outcomes after less than a year. Removable versus fixed retainers Removable (part-time) versus fixed One study reported that participants wearing clear plastic retainers part-time in the lower arch had more relapse than participants with multistrand fixed retainers, but the amount was not clinically significant (Little's Irregularity Index (LII) MD 0.92 mm, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61; 56 participants). Removable retainers were more likely to cause discomfort (RR 12.22; 95% CI 1.69 to 88.52; 57 participants), but were associated with less retainer failure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98; 57 participants) and better periodontal health (Gingival Index (GI) MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.02; 59 participants). Removable (full-time) versus fixed One study reported that removable clear plastic retainers worn full-time in the lower arch did not provide any clinically significant benefit for tooth stability over fixed retainers (LII MD 0.60 mm, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 84 participants). Participants with clear plastic retainers had better periodontal health (gingival bleeding RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; 84 participants), but higher risk of retainer failure (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.38 to 8.47; 77 participants). The study found no difference between retainers for caries. Different types of fixed retainers Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) nitinol versus conventional/analogue multistrand One study reported that CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainers were better for tooth stability, but the difference was not clinically significant (LII MD -0.46 mm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.21; 66 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between retainers for periodontal health (GI MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 2 studies, 107 participants), or retainer survival (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 1 study, 41 participants). Fibre-reinforced composite versus conventional multistrand/spiral wire One study reported that fibre-reinforced composite fixed retainers provided better stability than multistrand retainers, but this was not of a clinically significant amount (LII MD -0.70 mm, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.23; 52 participants). The fibre-reinforced retainers had better patient satisfaction with aesthetics (MD 1.49 cm on a visual analogue scale, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.22; 1 study, 32 participants), and similar retainer survival rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 7 studies; 1337 participants) at 12 months. However, failures occurred earlier (MD -1.48 months, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.08; 2 studies, 103 participants; 24-month follow-up) and more gingival inflammation at six months, though bleeding on probing (BoP) was similar (GI MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; BoP MD 0.33, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.79; 1 study, 40 participants). Different types of removable retainers Clear plastic versus Hawley When worn in the lower arch for six months full-time and six months part-time, clear plastic provided similar stability to Hawley retainers (LII MD 0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.67; 1 study, 30 participants). Hawley retainers had lower risk of failure (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; 1 study, 111 participants), but were less comfortable at six months (VAS MD -1.86 cm, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; 1 study, 86 participants). Part-time versus full-time wear of Hawley There was no evidence of a difference in stability between part-time and full-time use of Hawley retainers (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.68; 1 study, 52 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is low to very low certainty, so we cannot draw firm conclusions about any one approach to retention over another. More high-quality studies are needed that measure tooth stability over at least two years, and measure how long retainers last, patient satisfaction and negative side effects from wearing retainers, such as tooth decay and gum disease.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Care; Gingivitis; Periodontal Diseases; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37219527
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002283.pub5 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Aug 2022The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT
The aim of this systematic review is to analyze literature regarding the relationship between the implant-abutment emergence angle (EA) and implant emergence profile (EP) and the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from initiation up to April 2022. Studies describing the EA and EP in association with peri-implantitis were considered eligible for this review and selected for inclusion in this review if implant groups with wide and narrow EA and different EP types were described.
RESULTS
Searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library led to 1116 unique titles and the inclusion of three studies. These concerned 168-349 implants. Two studies presented the mean prevalence of peri-implantitis which was 16.7% and 24.8% at the implant level. Both studies showed a significant relationship between peri-implantitis in bone-level implant groups with an EA above 30° compared to implants with an EA below 30°. A third study presented marginal bone loss which tended to be smaller when the EA was around 20°-40°. In one of the three included studies, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was significantly higher if implants had a convex EP compared to a concave or straight EP. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with a convex EP compared to other EP types, if combined with an EA above 30°.
CONCLUSIONS
Three eligible studies were found. Reported associations should therefore be considered with caution. Synthesis suggests an association between a larger EA (>30°) and a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis or marginal bone loss compared to a smaller EA (<30°). A convex EP may also be associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. However, causality remains a question.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 35713938
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.594 -
Nutrients Nov 2020The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the available literature about the influence of breastfeeding in primary and mixed dentition on different types of...
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the available literature about the influence of breastfeeding in primary and mixed dentition on different types of malocclusions.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines were used to perform the present review. The following electronic databases were searched: Pubmed, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science and Ovid.
RESULTS
A primary research found a total of 279 articles. Two more papers were also considered from the gray literature. Two hundred sixty-three articles were excluded as they were deemed irrelevant on the basis of: duplicates, title, abstract, methods and/or irrelevant contents. Eighteen papers were selected and included in the qualitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
breastfeeding is a positive factor that seems to reduce the incidence of posterior crossbite, skeletal class II and distoclusion in primary and mixed dentition. A sort of positive relationship between months of breastfeeding and risk reduction seems to exist. More longitudinal research is needed to avoid bias in the results, with data collected prospectively on the months of exclusive breastfeeding, by means of specific questionnaires and successive clinical evaluation of the occlusal condition at the primary dentition, mixed dentition and permanent dentition stages.
Topics: Bottle Feeding; Breast Feeding; Databases, Factual; Dentition; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Humans; Malocclusion; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33265907
DOI: 10.3390/nu12123688