-
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2022Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (AO) is a poorly understood, common, painful complication following exodontia. It is sometimes managed by inappropriate prescription of antibiotics which contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Use of intra-alveolar chlorhexidine also presents a serious risk of anaphylaxis to the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aims to investigate the aetiology, prevention and management of AO and highlight the extent of inappropriate prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine use.
DESIGN
A scoping review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Ovid and Pubmed were searched between 2010 and 2020, from which 63 studies were selected for review that related to the aetiology, prevention or management of AO. Data were analysed for frequency of studies reporting information on risk factors for aetiology, prevention strategies and management including inappropriate management using antibiotic prescribing and intra-alveolar chlorhexidine.
RESULTS
Impaired immune response, surgical technique and age were identified as significant factors in the development of AO, while there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of smoking and gender. With regard to prevention, the use of prophylactic antibiotics is not supported within the literature. Saline irrigation and eugenol pastes used preventively have been shown to be cheap and effective alternatives to chlorhexidine with no adverse effects. Hyaluronic acid and low-level laser therapies showed a significant reduction in pain and soft-tissue inflammation in the management of AO compared to Alveogyl.
CONCLUSIONS
Further understanding of the pathophysiology of AO is needed, in addition to large high-quality RCTs or long-term observational studies into the aetiology, prevention, and management of AO to produce up-to-date evidence-based clinical guidelines. Clinicians should also be mindful of their contribution to growing antimicrobial resistance and avoid inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Saline should replace chlorhexidine as the intra-alveolar irrigant of choice.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Smoking; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34625985
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13268 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence). The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Eugenol; Humans; Mouthwashes; Pain; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 36156769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Nov 2021Alveolar Osteitis (AO) is one of the most common complications of tooth extraction. Several therapeutic interventions have been described for the treatment of AO,...
BACKGROUND
Alveolar Osteitis (AO) is one of the most common complications of tooth extraction. Several therapeutic interventions have been described for the treatment of AO, however, there are no treatment standardized protocols. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the efficacy in pain control of the different treatments for AO. The feasibility of the application of these interventions is also discussed.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A structured electronic and hand search strategy was applied to PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar between January 2010 and July 2020 to identify studies according to PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were original English and Spanish clinical trials that analyzed pain-control parameters according to visual analog scale (VAS, 0-10 scale), or pain relief patients' percentages. Those treatments that reach VAS ≤ 4 on day 2 or before; or ≥ 85% of patients with absence of pain symptoms at day 7 or before were considered acceptable for their recommendation.
RESULTS
The final review included 17 clinical trials. Among them, there were analyzed a total of 39 different AO treatments. 53,8% of the treatments fulfill the proposed parameters for pain control.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment alternatives are multiple, heterogeneous, and difficult to compare. The management of AO is summarized in basic (intra-alveolar irrigation) and specific procedures (Alveogyl®, Neocones®, SaliCept Patch®, Low-Level Laser, Platelet-Rich Fibrin) that reach pain control success. They could be selected according to their availability and advantages or disadvantages.
Topics: Dry Socket; Humans; Pain Management; Platelet-Rich Fibrin; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34704976
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24256 -
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 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed diagnostic criteria or outcomes and, as a result, prospective randomised controlled trials in SAPHO are absent. Consequently, there is no agreed treatment standard. This study aimed to systematically collate and discuss treatment options in SAPHO.
METHODS
Following 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' guidance, a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Prospective clinical studies and retrospective case collections discussing management and outcomes in SAPHO involving five or more participants were included. Articles not published in English, studies not reporting defined outcomes, and studies solely relying on patient-reported outcomes were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies (20 observational, 8 open-label clinical studies) reporting 796 patients of predominantly European ethnicity were included. Reported therapies varied greatly, with many centres using multiple treatments in parallel. Most patients (37.1%) received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination. Bisphosphonates (22.1%), conventional (21.7%) and biological (11.3%) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were the next most frequently reported treatments. Reported outcomes varied and delivered mixed results, which complicates comparisons. Bisphosphonates demonstrated the most consistent improvement of osteoarticular symptoms and were associated with transient influenza-like symptoms. Paradoxical skin reactions were reported in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, but no serious adverse events were recorded. Most treatments had limited or mixed effects on cutaneous involvement. A recent study investigating the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib delivered promising results in relation to skin and nail involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
No single currently available treatment option sufficiently addresses all SAPHO-associated symptoms. Variable, sometimes descriptive outcomes and the use of treatment combinations complicate conclusions and treatment recommendations. Randomised clinical trials are necessary to generate reliable evidence.
Topics: Humans; Acquired Hyperostosis Syndrome; Osteitis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Synovitis; Hyperostosis; Acne Vulgaris; Diphosphonates
PubMed: 38151265
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003688 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2024Post-tooth extraction, dry socket is a frequently encountered complication, causing substantial pain and hindering the healing process. Conventional approaches to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Post-tooth extraction, dry socket is a frequently encountered complication, causing substantial pain and hindering the healing process. Conventional approaches to manage this condition have traditionally involved the use of antiseptic dressings to diminish bacterial presence and facilitate healing. This study aims to assess the efficacy of laser therapy in the symptomatic treatment of alveolitis.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, focusing on publications from 1998 to 31/01/2024 using relevant keywords. The combination of "laser" and "dry socket" was executed through the boolean connection AND.
RESULTS
At the conclusion of the study, a total of 50 studies were identified across the three search engines, with only three selected for the current systematic study and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that laser treatment proves effective in addressing alveolitis compared to Alvogyl. However, the correlation between the two was not highly significant.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that laser therapy may serve as a viable alternative to traditional treatments for dry socket. This minimally invasive procedure has the potential to alleviate pain and promote healing with fewer associated side effects."
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Laser Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Tooth Extraction; Low-Level Light Therapy; Wound Healing
PubMed: 38886713
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04461-w -
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral... Sep 2022Honey has been used for millennia as a treatment for covering wounds that are difficult to repair. Hippocrates already reported the benefits of honey with this type of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Honey has been used for millennia as a treatment for covering wounds that are difficult to repair. Hippocrates already reported the benefits of honey with this type of treatment. The objective of this work is to evaluate the literature on the use of honey in cases as preventive as treatment complications after extractions, more specifically alveolar osteitis or alveolitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was carried out on PubMed, LILACS and Dimensions platforms, following PRISMA guidelines, to gain more knowledge on the topic. Due to the scarcity of articles on the topic, there are no restrictions regarding languages, publication dates or impact factor journal. Animal studies and reviews were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed through Review Manager Software 5.4.
RESULTS
With simple, low-cost, and affordable medications, many of the complications after tooth extractions can be resolved more quickly and less painfully for patients with more significant difficulties, whether financial or access, to other treatments.
CONCLUSION
Honey is an effective prevention and treatment for alveolar osteitis.
PubMed: 36274888
DOI: 10.1007/s12663-021-01611-3 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2023To assess whether in animals or patients with ≥ 1 tooth extracted, hyaluronic acid (HyA) application results in superior healing and/or improved complication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether in animals or patients with ≥ 1 tooth extracted, hyaluronic acid (HyA) application results in superior healing and/or improved complication management compared to any other treatment or no treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three databases were searched until April 2022. The most relevant eligibility criteria were (1) local application of HyA as adjunct to tooth extraction or as treatment of alveolar osteitis, and (2) reporting of clinical, radiographic, histological, or patient-reported data. New bone formation and/or quality were considered main outcome parameters in preclinical studies, while pain, swelling, and trismus were defined as main outcome parameters in clinical studies.
RESULTS
Five preclinical and 22 clinical studies (1062 patients at final evaluation) were included. In preclinical trials, HyA was applied into the extraction socket. Although a positive effect of HyA was seen in all individual studies on bone formation, this effect was not confirmed by meta-analysis. In clinical studies, HyA was applied into the extraction socket or used as spray or mouthwash. HyA application after non-surgical extraction of normally erupted teeth may have a positive effect on soft tissue healing. Based on meta-analyses, HyA application after surgical removal of lower third molars (LM3) resulted in significant reduction in pain perception 7 days postoperatively compared to either no additional wound manipulation or the application of a placebo/carrier. Early post-operative pain, trismus, and extent of swelling were unaffected.
CONCLUSIONS
HyA application may have a positive effect in pain reduction after LM3 removal, but not after extraction of normally erupted teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
HyA application may have a positive effect in pain reduction after surgical LM3 removal, but it does not seem to have any impact on other complications or after extraction of normally erupted teeth. Furthermore, it seems not to reduce post-extraction alveolar ridge modeling, even though preclinical studies show enhanced bone formation.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Tooth Socket; Hyaluronic Acid; Trismus; Dry Socket; Tooth Extraction; Molar, Third; Pain
PubMed: 37963982
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05227-4 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2021Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used for various pathologies associated with bone marrow oedema (BME). However, it is still not clear whether ESWT may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used for various pathologies associated with bone marrow oedema (BME). However, it is still not clear whether ESWT may be favourable in the treatment of BME. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of ESWT for the treatment of BME.
METHODS
MEDLINE was searched for relevant literature with no time constraints. Both randomized and non-randomized trials were included. Case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened and full-text articles of included studies were retrieved. Data on the effect of ESWT on pain, function, and the BME area on magnet resonance imaging were extracted.
RESULTS
Pain, function, and magnet resonance imaging results all improved across the studies - regardless of whether it was a randomized or non-randomized study. This effect was consistent across multiple pathologies such as osteonecrosis of the femoral head, BME associated with knee osteoarthritis, Kienböck's disease, and osteitis pubis. The meta-analysis showed that pain (after 1 month: weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 2.23, 95% CI - 2.58 to - 1.88, P < 0.0001; after 3-6 month: WMD = - 1.72, 95% CI - 2.52 to - 0.92, P < 0.00001) and function (after 1 month: WMD = - 1.59, 95% CI - 2.04 to - 1.14, P < 0.0001; after 3-6 month: WMD = - 2.06, 95% CI - 3.16 to - 0.96, P = 0.0002; after ≥ 12 month: WMD = - 1.20, 95% CI - 1.83 to - 0.56, P = 0.0002) was reduced in terms of ESWT treatment compared to a control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, ESWT may be an adequate option for conservative therapy in pathologies involving BME.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42021201719 . Registered 23 December 2020.
Topics: Bone Diseases; Bone Marrow; Conservative Treatment; Edema; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Female; Femur Head Necrosis; Humans; Male; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34107978
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02484-5