-
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Mar 2021For patients with diabetic foot ulcers, offloading is one crucial aspect of treatment and aims to redistribute pressure away from the ulcer site. In addition to...
BACKGROUND
For patients with diabetic foot ulcers, offloading is one crucial aspect of treatment and aims to redistribute pressure away from the ulcer site. In addition to offloading strategies, patients are often advised to reduce their activity levels. Consequently, patients may avoid exercise altogether. However, it has been suggested that exercise induces an increase in vasodilation and tissue blood flow, which may potentially facilitate ulcer healing. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether exercise improves healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
REVIEW
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE between July 6, 2009 and July 6, 2019 using the key terms and subject headings diabetes, diabetic foot, physical activity, exercise, resistance training and wound healing. Randomised controlled trials were included in this review. Three randomised controlled trials (139 participants) were included in this systematic review. All studies incorporated a form of non-weight bearing exercise as the intervention over a 12-week period. One study conducted the intervention in a supervised setting, while two studies conducted the intervention in an unsupervised setting. Two studies found greater improvement in percentage wound size reduction in the intervention group compared with the control group, with one of these studies achieving statistically significant findings (p < 0.05). The results of the third study demonstrated statistically significant findings for total wound size reduction (p < 0.05), however results were analysed within each treatment group and not between groups.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review found there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support non-weight bearing exercise as an intervention to improve healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Regardless, the results demonstrate some degree of wound size reduction and there were no negative consequences of the intervention for the participants. Given the potential benefits of exercise on patient health and wellbeing, non-weight bearing exercise should be encouraged as part of the management plan for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Further research is required to better understand the relationship between exercise and healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
Topics: Aged; Diabetic Foot; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Foot; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Regional Blood Flow; Treatment Outcome; Vasodilation; Weight-Bearing; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33743791
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-021-00456-w -
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2020This review aims to assess the evidence supporting the impact of patient foot care education on self efficacy, self care behaviour, and self care knowledge in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to assess the evidence supporting the impact of patient foot care education on self efficacy, self care behaviour, and self care knowledge in individuals with diabetes.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered prospectively on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019106171). Ovid EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from 1946 to the end of March 2019, using search terms related to the domains diabetic foot, patient education, self efficacy, self care behaviour, and self care knowledge. All included studies were prospective, randomised controlled trials that assessed foot care education interventions in individuals with diabetes and recorded an outcome related to self efficacy, self care behaviour, and/or self care knowledge.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomised controlled trials were included, reporting on a total of 3948 individuals. The risk of bias was high or unclear in 11 of the 13 included studies, and low in two studies. Both the education interventions delivered, and the outcome assessment tools used were heterogenous across included studies: meta-analysis was therefore not performed. Eight of 11 studies identified significantly better foot self care behaviour scores in individuals randomised to education compared with controls. Self efficacy scores were significantly better in education groups in four of five studies reporting this primary outcome. Foot care knowledge was significantly better in intervention vs. control in three of seven studies. In general, studies assessing secondary endpoints including quality of life and ulcer/amputation incidence tended not to identify significant clinical improvements.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence is of inadequate quality to reliably conclude that foot care education has a positive impact on foot self care behaviour and self efficacy in individuals with diabetes. Quality data supporting accompanying benefits on quality of life or ulcer/amputation incidence are also lacking and should be considered as an important outcome measure in future studies.
Topics: Aged; Diabetic Foot; Female; Health Behavior; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Education as Topic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Care; Self Efficacy; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32660807
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.03.053 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm, 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Betaine; Bias; Biguanides; Confidence Intervals; Detergents; Disinfectants; Ethylene Glycols; Female; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Imines; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ringer's Solution; Saline Solution; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33734426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011675.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2020The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in the treatment of grade I, II, III, and IV pressure ulcers in adult patients. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in the treatment of grade I, II, III, and IV pressure ulcers in adult patients. We compared the therapeutic effects of hydrocolloids and alternative dressings in pressure ulcer treatment. We conducted a systematic review, using a literature search only in English, from database inception until 20 April 2020, to identify randomized trials comparing various types of dressings applied in the healing of pressure ulcers. The databases were PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). The study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted based on the guidelines included in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using a standardized critical appraisal instrument developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effect meta-analysis of data from three or more studies was performed using meta-analysis software (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3, Biostat, New Jersey, USA). A total of 1145 records were identified, of which 223 were qualified after further verification, of which eight were finally included in further analysis. Hydrocolloid dressings were not superior to control therapeutics ( = 0.839; Z = 0.203; CI 95%: 0.791-1.334). They were not associated with higher healing rates ( = 0.718; Z = 0.361; OR: 0.067; CI 95%: 0.297-0.431), nor did they decrease the incidence of adverse events compared with control therapeutics ( = 0.300; Z = -1.036; OR: 0.067; CI 95%: 0.394-1.333). In the above cases, Egger's test also did not indicate publication bias (t value = 0.779, = 0.465; t value = 1.198, = 0.442; t value = 0.834, = 0.465, respectively). The present meta-analysis shows that hydrocolloid dressings are not significantly better than alternative ones in the healing of pressure ulcers in adult patients.
Topics: Adult; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33121151
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217881 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2021To date, treatment of atrophic acne scars remains a therapeutic challenge for dermatologists, yet there is no standard option on the most effective treatment....
To date, treatment of atrophic acne scars remains a therapeutic challenge for dermatologists, yet there is no standard option on the most effective treatment. Microneedling (MN) is a minimally invasive technology that involves repetitive skin puncture using sterile microneedles to disrupt dermal collagen that connects the scar tissue. Recent studies have demonstrated the potency of MN, such as dermaroller and fractionated microneedle radiofrequency, in the treatment of atrophic scars. The objective of this review is to evaluate systematically the current literature on MN for atrophic acne scars. A systematic search of literature was performed from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar databases for articles published during the last 20 years. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with full-text version of the manuscript available were included in our study. Nine RCTs were included in this review. All treatment modalities demonstrated consistent results that MN was efficacious in treating atrophic acne scars as a monotherapy or in combination with other treatments. Moreover, no serious adverse effects were reported in all studies after MN treatment. MN is a well-tolerated and effective therapeutic modality in treating atrophic acne scars. Further research is required to validate the efficacy of MN with a larger sample size and lengthy follow-up.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Atrophy; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Humans; Needles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33538106
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13559 -
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... Oct 2022There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Debridement; Humans; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Wound Healing; Young Adult
PubMed: 36228111
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012032.pub3 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2021Studies have suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is effective in the healing of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU); however, there is a lack of consensus. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies have suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is effective in the healing of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU); however, there is a lack of consensus. Therefore, to assess the efficacy of HBOT on diabetic foot ulcer among diabetic patients, controlled clinical trials were searched through PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical key, Ovid Discovery, ERMED, Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other sources until 15 September 2020. Studies that evaluated the effect of HBOT on diabetic foot ulcer, complete healing, amputation, adverse events, ulcer reduction area, and mortality rate were included. Of 1984 study records screened, 14 studies (768 participants) including twelve RCTs, and two CCTs were included as per inclusion criteria. The results with pooled analysis have shown that HBOT was significantly effective in complete healing of diabetic foot ulcer (OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.14-0.61; I = 62%) and reduction of major amputation (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.92; I = 24%). Although, it was not effective for minor amputations (RR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.34-1.97; I = 79%); however, less adverse events were reported in standard treatment group (RR = 1.68; 95% CI 1.07-2.65; I = 0%). Nevertheless, reduction in mean percentage of ulcer area and mortality rate did not differ in HBOT and control groups. This review provides an evidence that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is effective as an adjunct treatment measure for the diabetes foot ulcers. These findings could be generalized cautiously by considering methodological flaws within all studies.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Publication Bias; Risk; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33500533
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81886-1 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2023Recently, nutraceuticals have been widely explored in many medical fields and their use is also increasing in oral and dental problems. Since the nutraceutical evidence... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Recently, nutraceuticals have been widely explored in many medical fields and their use is also increasing in oral and dental problems. Since the nutraceutical evidence landscape in the literature has not been fully elucidated yet, this review aims to examine the effects of commercially available nutraceuticals and their potential evidence and applications in dentistry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A scoping review was conducted following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)" checklist. The electronic search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science on March 2022. The inclusion criteria include humans, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials (RCT), reviews, and systematic reviews published over the last ten years.
RESULTS
18 studies met the eligibility criteria. There were 2 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews, and four narrative reviews. In most studies, the clinical indications were oral leucoplakia, periodontitis, osseointegration of implants, oral mucositis, oral clefts, and oral health. Probiotics, prebiotics, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and vitamins A, B, C, D, and E were the most common nutraceuticals used in dentistry.
CONCLUSIONS
Nutraceuticals are foods that, according to the literature, may be useful for preventing and treating dental diseases.
Topics: Humans; Dietary Supplements; Vitamins; Osseointegration; Vitamin A; Dentistry
PubMed: 37318464
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202306_32607 -
Frontiers in Bioengineering and... 2022Regenerative medicine is a discipline that studies how to use biological and engineering principles and operation methods to repair and regenerate damaged tissues and...
Regenerative medicine is a discipline that studies how to use biological and engineering principles and operation methods to repair and regenerate damaged tissues and organs. Until now, regenerative medicine has focused mainly on the in-depth study of the pathological mechanism of diseases, the further development and application of new drugs, and tissue engineering technology strategies. The emergence of aptamers has supplemented the development methods and types of new drugs and enriched the application elements of tissue engineering technology, injecting new vitality into regenerative medicine. The role and application status of aptamers screened in recent years in various tissue regeneration and repair are reviewed, and the prospects and challenges of aptamer technology are discussed, providing a basis for the design and application of aptamers in long-term transformation.
PubMed: 36105606
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.976960