-
The Angle Orthodontist Mar 2020To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion compared with other nonsurgical intrusive mechanics for deep-bite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary incisor intrusion compared with other nonsurgical intrusive mechanics for deep-bite correction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Unrestricted electronic searches in Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane's CENTRAL as well as manual searches were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment were done by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used, and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A random-effects meta-analysis of continuous data, with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was used.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis, and the overall quality of evidence was very low to low. When compared with intrusion arches, miniscrews resulted in a more efficient deep-bite reduction with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.48 (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.07). When miniscrews were used, a statistically significant difference was observed favoring less maxillary molar extrusion (SMD, -0.86; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.27) and more incisor intrusion as measured from centroid to palatal plane (SMD, -0.95; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.49). Results also showed a statistically nonsignificant difference regarding the amount of resultant root resorption between miniscrews and intrusion arches.
CONCLUSIONS
There is weak evidence indicating efficient deep-bite correction using miniscrews. Root resorption seems to be an associated adverse effect that occurs regardless of the intrusive mechanics used. These conclusions should be viewed with great caution as further well-designed long-term research is recommended.
Topics: Bone Screws; Humans; Incisor; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Overbite; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 31816252
DOI: 10.2319/061119-400.1 -
Progress in Orthodontics Sep 2020The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the degree of stability of anterior open bite (AOB) treatment performed through the molar intrusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the degree of stability of anterior open bite (AOB) treatment performed through the molar intrusion supported with skeletal anchorage at least 1 year posttreatment.
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037513). A literature search was conducted to identify randomized (RCT) or non-randomized clinical trials based including those considering before and after design. Data sources were electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, Lilacs, OpenGrey, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The quality of evidence was assessed through the JBI tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated through the GRADE tool. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate.
RESULTS
Six hundred twenty-four articles met the initial inclusion criteria. From these, only 6 remained. The mean posttreatment follow-up time was 2.5 years (SD = 1.04). The overbite showed a standardized mean relapse of - 1.23 mm (95% CI - 1.64, - 0.81, p < 0.0001). Maxillary and mandibular incisors presented a non-significant mean relapse, U1-PP - 0.04 mm (95% CI - 0.55, 0.48) and L1-MP - 0.10 mm (95% CI - 0.57, 0.37). Molar intrusion showed a relapse rate around 12% for the maxillary molars and a 27.2% for mandibular molars.
CONCLUSION
The stability of AOB through molar intrusion using TADs can be considered relatively similar to that reported to surgical approaches, since 10 to 30% of relapse occurs both in maxillary and mandibular molars. The level of certainty ranged between very low and low. RCTs reporting dropout during the follow-up are in dire need.
Topics: Cephalometry; Humans; Maxilla; Molar; Open Bite; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 32888097
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00328-2 -
BMC Oral Health Apr 2021A dentigerous cyst (DC) is a pathology embracing the crown of an unerupted tooth at risk of malignant transformation. The causal tooth is usually removed together with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A dentigerous cyst (DC) is a pathology embracing the crown of an unerupted tooth at risk of malignant transformation. The causal tooth is usually removed together with the cyst. However, if there are orthodontic contraindications for extraction, two questions arise. (1) Which factors favor spontaneous eruption? (2) Which factors imply the necessity of applying orthodontic traction? This systematic review aimed to identify factors conducive/inconducive to the spontaneous eruption of teeth after dentigerous cyst marsupialization.
METHODS
In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the main research question was defined in the PICO format (P: patients with dentigerous cysts; I: spontaneous tooth eruption after surgical DC treatment; C: lack of a spontaneous tooth eruption after surgical DC treatment; O: determining factors potentially influencing spontaneous tooth eruption). The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for keywords combining dentigerous/odontogenic/follicular cysts with teeth and/or orthodontics, as well as human teeth and eruption patterns/intervals/periods/durations. The following data were extracted from the qualified articles (4 out of 3005 found initially): the rate of tooth eruption after surgical treatment of the cyst, the age and sex of the patients, the perpendicular projection distance between the top of the tooth cusp and the edge of the alveolar process, tooth angulation, the root formation stage, the cyst area, and the eruption space. The articles were subjected to risk of bias and quality analyses with the ROBINS-I protocol and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa QAS, respectively. Meta-analyses were performed with both fixed and random effects models. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under ID CRD42020189044.
RESULTS
Nearly 62% of DC-associated premolars erupted spontaneously after cyst marsupialization/decompression. Young age (mean = 10 years) and root formation not exceeding 1/2 of its fully developed length were the factors likely to favor spontaneous eruption.
CONCLUSION
The small number of published studies, as well as their heterogeneity and the critical risk of bias, did not allow the creation of evidence-based protocols for managing teeth with DC after marsupialization. More high-quality research is needed to draw more reliable conclusions.
Topics: Bicuspid; Child; Dentigerous Cyst; Humans; Tooth Eruption; Tooth, Impacted; Tooth, Unerupted
PubMed: 33827533
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01542-y -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment...
BACKGROUND
Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars.
METHODS
Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care.
RESULTS
The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy.
FUTURE WORK
Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Molar, Third; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32589125
DOI: 10.3310/hta24300 -
Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology May 2020The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions.
METHODS
The literature search included five databases (), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by (GRADE).
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75-2.02; : 0%; = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Nerve; Molar, Third; Paresthesia; Radiography, Panoramic; Spiral Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 31724883
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20190265 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local...
BACKGROUND
Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is performed in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an review originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 May 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov)and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. .
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with no restriction on length of follow-up, comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We also considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently and in duplicate conducted the risk of bias assessments. When information was unclear, we contacted the study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update includes the same two studies that were identified in our previous version of the review: one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom, and one prospective cohort study, which was conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low- to very low-certainty evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures. One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effects of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth. One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch. The included studies did not measure any of our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed or retained. Although retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is very low certainty. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the current lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision-making with people who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain these teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asymptomatic Diseases; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32368796
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003879.pub5 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2024Three years into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there are still growing concerns with the emergence of different variants, unknown long- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Three years into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there are still growing concerns with the emergence of different variants, unknown long- and short-term effects of the virus, and potential biological mechanisms underlying etiopathogenesis and increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The role of the microbiome in human physiology and the initiation and progression of several oral and systemic diseases have been actively studied in the past decade. With the proof of viral transmission, carriage, and a potential role in etiopathogenesis, saliva and the oral environment have been a focus of COVID-19 research beyond diagnostic purposes. The oral environment hosts diverse microbial communities and contributes to human oral and systemic health. Several investigations have identified disruptions in the oral microbiome in COVID-19 patients. However, all these studies are cross-sectional in nature and present heterogeneity in study design, techniques, and analysis. Therefore, in this undertaking, we (a) systematically reviewed the current literature associating COVID-19 with changes in the microbiome; (b) performed a re-analysis of publicly available data as a means to standardize the analysis, and (c) reported alterations in the microbial characteristics in COVID-19 patients compared to negative controls. Overall, we identified that COVID-19 is associated with oral microbial dysbiosis with significant reduction in diversity. However, alterations in specific bacterial members differed across the study. Re-analysis from our pipeline shed light on Neisseria as the potential key microbial member associated with COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Dysbiosis; Microbiota; Mouth; Oropharynx; Saliva; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 37277934
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12489 -
Medicine Dec 2021SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas...
BACKGROUND
SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas to come into contact with the virus is the oral cavity, which develops various alterations. Hence, the objective of this systematic review was to identify the main signs and symptoms of this disease in the oral cavity, and the following research question was established: What are the main oral signs and symptoms in COVID-19-positive persons?
METHODS
The electronic databases of PUBMED, SCOPUS, and SCIENCE DIRECT were analyzed, the keywords "ORAL DISEASES," "ORAL MANIFESTACTIONS," and "COVID-19" were used taking into account the following inclusion criteria: studies whose main objective was oral manifestations secondary to the confirmation of COVID-19, plus clinical cases, case series, and retrospective or prospective studies. For the assessment of the risk of bias the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series tool was used.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies were included, the most common initial signs/symptoms after contagion of SARS-CoV-2 were dysgeusia, dry mouth, and burning mouth, and the main signs/symptoms were the presence of ulcerative lesions, dysgeusia, and Candida albicans infections.
CONCLUSIONS
It is very important to detect any alteration in the mucosa in patients with COVID-19 and to provide assertive treatment to avoid complications, and try to maintain adequate oral hygiene throughout the course of the disease to avoid the colonization of opportunistic microorganisms and to avoid complications both orally and systemically.
Topics: COVID-19; Candidiasis, Oral; Dysgeusia; Humans; Mouth; Mouth Diseases; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34941133
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028327 -
Archives of Oral Biology Sep 2021To review published oral microbiome studies and create a comprehensive list of bacterial species found in saliva and dental plaque among healthy children and adults... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review published oral microbiome studies and create a comprehensive list of bacterial species found in saliva and dental plaque among healthy children and adults associated with presence of carious lesions and caries-free state (oral health).
DESIGN
This review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched published studies querying PUBMED and EMBASE using the following keywords: (plaque OR saliva) AND caries AND (next generation sequencing OR checkerboard OR 16s rRNA or qPCR). Studies were limited to human studies published in English between January 1, 2010 and June 24, 2020 that included > 10 caries-active and > 10 caries-free participants, and assessed the entire bacterial community.
RESULTS
Our search strategy identified 298 articles. After exclusion criteria, 22 articles remained; we considered 2 studies that examined saliva and plaque as separate studies, for a total of 24 studies. Species associated with caries or oral health varied widely among studies reviewed, with notable differences by age and biologic sample type. No bacterial species was associated with caries in all studies. Streptococcus mutans was found more frequently among those with caries (14/24 (58.3 %)) and Fusobacterium periodonticum was found more frequently among those that were caries-free (5/24 (20.8 %)).
CONCLUSION
No bacterial species was associated with caries or oral health across all studies supporting multiple pathways to cariogenesis. However, the variation may be due to sampling at different time points during caries development, varying methods of specimen sampling, storage, sequencing or analysis or differences in host factors such as age.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Caries; Fusobacterium; Humans; Mouth; Oral Health; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S; Saliva; Streptococcus mutans
PubMed: 34246103
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2021.105204