-
The Saudi Dental Journal Feb 2023The aim of this systematic review was to present the current knowledge on the influence of laser surface treatment on the adhesion of bacteria to titanium and its alloys. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to present the current knowledge on the influence of laser surface treatment on the adhesion of bacteria to titanium and its alloys.
DESIGN
This review was structured according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and -analyses, and registered on the Open Science Framework platform (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FTA3W). Article searches were performed in 4 databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Science Direct. In addition, a manual search was performed in the reference lists of the selected articles. The selection of articles was performed by two reviewers. The articles found were screened for eligibility using the previously established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (non-randomized experimental studies).
RESULTS
Most of the studies evaluated showed that surface treatment by laser irradiation can affect the adhesion of bacteria to titanium surfaces and that this is directly related to changes in surface properties such as chemical composition, morphology, roughness, and wettability, as well as the type of bacterial species involved.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies considered in this systematic review have shown that surface treatment by laser irradiation is a promising technique to reduce the adhesion of bacteria on the surface of titanium implants.
PubMed: 36942202
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.01.004 -
American Journal of Infection Control Nov 2016Worldwide, enteric viruses are the main cause of acute gastroenteritis. In humans, these viruses spread via person-to-person contact, food, water, and/or the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, enteric viruses are the main cause of acute gastroenteritis. In humans, these viruses spread via person-to-person contact, food, water, and/or the environment. Their survival and inactivation on hard surfaces have been extensively studied; however, nonlaunderable soft surfaces, such as upholstery and carpet, have received little attention. The aim of this systematic review was to determine factors that influence the survival and inactivation of enteric viruses on nonlaunderable soft surfaces.
METHODS
EBSCO and Web of Science were searched for experimental studies published between 1965 and 2015 using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methods. Titles and abstracts were screened using 3 eligibility criteria. The quality of all study methods was also assessed.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 12 articles. Viruses survived between 0 hours and 140 days depending on surface and environment conditions. Virus survival was influenced by temperature, relative humidity, organic content, and deposition method. A variety of chemistries were tested across studies and were shown to have a varied effect on enteric viruses. Chlorine, glutaraldehyde, vaporous ozone, and hydrogen peroxide were the most efficacious against enteric viruses (> 3-log reduction).
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental factors, such as temperature and relative humidity, can influence survival of enteric viruses on nonlaunderable soft surfaces. The efficacy of liquid and vaporous chemistries are associated with surface and virus type.
Topics: Environmental Microbiology; Microbial Viability; Norovirus; Rotavirus
PubMed: 27160982
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.018 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Unrelieved pressure or friction of the skin, particularly over bony prominences, can lead to pressure ulcers in up to one third of people in hospitals or community care, and one fifth of nursing home residents. Pressure ulcers are more likely in people with reduced mobility and poor skin condition, such as older people or those with vascular disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in people at risk of developing pressure ulcers? What are the effects of treatments in people with pressure ulcers? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 64 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: air-filled vinyl boots, air-fluidised supports, alternating-pressure surfaces (including mattresses), alternative foam mattresses, constant low-pressure supports, debridement, electric profiling beds, electrotherapy, hydrocellular heel supports, low-air-loss beds (including hydrotherapy beds), low-level laser therapy, low-tech constant-low-pressure supports, medical sheepskin overlays, nutritional supplements, orthopaedic wool padding, pressure-relieving overlays on operating tables, pressure-relieving surfaces, repositioning (regular "turning"), seat cushions, standard beds, standard care, standard foam mattresses, standard tables, surgery, therapeutic ultrasound, topical lotions and dressings, topical negative pressure, and topical phenytoin.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Bandages; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Debridement; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Patient Positioning; Phenytoin; Pressure Ulcer; Standard of Care; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 21524319
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to anaesthesia, and of prolonged exposure of large surfaces of skin to cold temperatures in operating rooms. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with clinical complications such as surgical site infection and wound-healing delay, increased bleeding or cardiovascular events. One of the most frequently used techniques to prevent inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is active body surface warming systems (ABSW), which generate heat mechanically (heating of air, water or gels) that is transferred to the patient via skin contact.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of pre- or intraoperative active body surface warming systems (ABSW), or both, to prevent perioperative complications from unintended hypothermia during surgery in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2015); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1964 to October 2015), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2015), and CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to October 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an ABSW system aimed at maintaining normothermia perioperatively against a control or against any other ABSW system. Eligible studies also had to include relevant clinical outcomes other than measuring temperature alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Several authors, by pairs, screened references and determined eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, with the collaboration of a third author.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 67 trials with 5438 participants that comprised 79 comparisons. Forty-five RCTs compared ABSW versus control, whereas 18 compared two different types of ABSW, and 10 compared two different techniques to administer the same type of ABSW. Forced-air warming (FAW) was by far the most studied intervention.Trials varied widely regarding whether the interventions were applied alone or in combination with other active (based on a different mechanism of heat transfer) and/or passive methods of maintaining normothermia. The type of participants and surgical interventions, as well as anaesthesia management, co-interventions and the timing of outcome measurement, also varied widely. The risk of bias of included studies was largely unclear due to limitations in the reports. Most studies were open-label, due to the nature of the intervention and the fact that temperature was usually the principal outcome. Nevertheless, given that outcome measurement could have been conducted in a blinded manner, we rated the risk of detection and performance bias as high.The comparison of ABSW versus control showed a reduction in the rate of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.66; 3 RCTs, 589 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study at low risk of bias observed a beneficial effect with forced-air warming on major cardiovascular complications (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.00; 1 RCT with 12 events, 300 participants, low-quality evidence) in people at high cardiovascular risk. We found no beneficial effect for mortality. ABSW also reduced blood loss during surgery but the magnitude of this effect seems to be irrelevant (MD -46.17 mL, 95% CI -82.74 to -9.59; I² = 78%; 20 studies, 1372 participants). The same conclusion applies to total fluids infused during surgery (MD -144.49 mL, 95% CI -221.57 to -67.40; I² = 73%; 24 studies, 1491 participants). These effects did not translate into a significant reduction in the number of participants being transfused or the average amount of blood transfused. ABSW was associated with a reduction in shivering (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54; 29 studies, 1922 participants) and in thermal comfort (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24; I² = 77%, 4 trials, 364 participants).For the comparison between different types of ABSW system or modes of administration of a particular type of ABSW, we found no evidence for the superiority of any system in terms of clinical outcomes, except for extending systemic warming to the preoperative period in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery (one study at low risk of bias).There were limited data on adverse effects (the most relevant being thermal burns). While some trials included a narrative report mentioning that no adverse effects were observed, the majority made no reference to it. Nothing so far suggests that ABSW involves a significant risk to patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Forced-air warming seems to have a beneficial effect in terms of a lower rate of surgical site infection and complications, at least in those undergoing abdominal surgery, compared to not applying any active warming system. It also has a beneficial effect on major cardiovascular complications in people with substantial cardiovascular disease, although the evidence is limited to one study. It also improves patient's comfort, although we found high heterogeneity among trials. While the effect on blood loss is statistically significant, this difference does not translate to a significant reduction in transfusions. Again, we noted high heterogeneity among trials for this outcome. The clinical relevance of blood loss reduction is therefore questionable. The evidence for other types of ABSW is scant, although there is some evidence of a beneficial effect in the same direction on chills/shivering with electric or resistive-based heating systems. Some evidence suggests that extending systemic warming to the preoperative period could be more beneficial than limiting it only to during surgery. Nothing suggests that ABSW systems pose a significant risk to patients.The difficulty in observing a clinically-relevant beneficial effect with ABSW in outcomes other than temperature may be explained by the fact that many studies applied concomitant procedures that are routinely in place as co-interventions to prevent hypothermia, whether passive or active warming systems based in other physiological mechanisms (e.g. irrigation fluid or gas warming), as well as a stricter control of temperature in the context of the study compared with usual practice. These may have had a beneficial effect on the participants in the control group, leading to an underestimation of the net benefit of ABSW.
Topics: Air; Blood Loss, Surgical; Body Surface Area; Body Temperature Regulation; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cold Temperature; Heating; Humans; Hypothermia; Intraoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 27098439
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009016.pub2 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2020To evaluate the effect of various titanium abutment modifications on the behaviour of peri-implant soft tissue healing, inflammation and maintenance. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of various titanium abutment modifications on the behaviour of peri-implant soft tissue healing, inflammation and maintenance.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic database research until 30 April 2019 was performed. A meta-analysis (MA) for each outcome parameter was performed by using the random-effects models with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the present review. Four studies with a long follow-up (5-6 years) reported the outcomes in a heterogeneous way and were suitable for MA. Six studies (4 RCT, 2 CCT) including 118 patients and 182 implants dealing with a modified healing abutment surface and short follow-up were selected for MA. The MA for PI and BoP as outcome showed no significant differences between surfaces (PI: P = 0.091; BoP: P = 0.099). The MA for PD as outcome showed no significant differences between surfaces (P = 0.488). No statistical significance was found by evaluating each mixed-effects model for potential moderators (type of study, study design, number of implants, follow-up length). The other four studies with a longer follow-up (5-6 years) reported contradictory results depending on the surface treatment investigated.
CONCLUSIONS
Within their limits, the present findings suggest that peri-implant soft tissue may not be affected by the surface treatment of titanium abutments on the short term. Contrasting results are reported in longer follow-up periods depending on the technique used to modify the abutment.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Clinicians should carefully evaluate the use of a modified titanium surface in their practice. Even if no differences in terms of inflammation are present at short term, these findings need to be validated in long-term studies.
Topics: Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Humans; Titanium
PubMed: 31955269
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03210-x -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) contribute to patient morbidity and mortality with an estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 deaths costing USD $28-34... (Review)
Review
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) contribute to patient morbidity and mortality with an estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 deaths costing USD $28-34 billion annually in the United States alone. There is little understanding as to if current environmental surface disinfection practices reduce pathogen load, and subsequently HAIs, in critical care settings. This evidence map includes a systematic review on the efficacy of disinfecting environmental surfaces in healthcare facilities. We screened 17,064 abstracts, 635 full texts, and included 181 articles for data extraction and study quality assessment. We reviewed ten disinfectant types and compared disinfectants with respect to study design, outcome organism, and fourteen indictors of study quality. We found important areas for improvement and gaps in the research related to study design, implementation, and analysis. Implementation of disinfection, a determinant of disinfection outcomes, was not measured in most studies and few studies assessed fungi or viruses. Assessing and comparing disinfection efficacy was impeded by study heterogeneity; however, we catalogued the outcomes and results for each disinfection type. We concluded that guidelines for disinfectant use are primarily based on laboratory data rather than a systematic review of in situ disinfection efficacy. It is critically important for practitioners and researchers to consider system-level efficacy and not just the efficacy of the disinfectant.
Topics: Cross Infection; Delivery of Health Care; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Health Facilities; Humans
PubMed: 34769620
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111100 -
Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Aug 2022Short implants are a potential alternative to long implants for use with bone augmentation in atrophic jaws. This meta-analysis investigated the survival rate and... (Review)
Review
Survival of surface-modified short versus long implants in complete or partially edentulous patients with a follow-up of 1 year or more: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Short implants are a potential alternative to long implants for use with bone augmentation in atrophic jaws. This meta-analysis investigated the survival rate and marginal bone level (MBL) of surface-modified short vs. long implants.
METHODS
Electronic and manual searches were performed for articles published between January 2010 and June 2021. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surface-modified short and long implants that reported the survival rate with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and the risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed regarding survival rate and MBL.
RESULTS
The failure rates of surface-modified short and long implants differed significantly (risk ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46, 3.57; 0.000). Long implants exhibited a higher survival rate than short implants (mean follow-up, 1-10 years). A significant difference was observed in mean MBL (mean difference=-0.43, 95% CI, -0.63, -0.23; <0.000), favoring the short implants. Regarding the impact of surface treatment in short and long implants, for hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched (=0.020) and titanium oxide fluoride-modified (=0.050) surfaces, the survival rate differed significantly between short and long implants. The MBL differences for novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched, and dual acid-etched with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystal surfaces (=0.050, =0.020, and <0.000, respectively) differed significantly for short vs. long implants.
CONCLUSIONS
Short surface-modified implants are a potential alternative to longer implants in atrophic ridges. Long fluoride-modified and hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched implants have higher survival rates than short implants. Short implants with novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surfaces, hydrophilic sandblasted acid-etched surfaces, and dual acid-etched surfaces with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate crystals showed less marginal bone loss than longer implants. Due to high heterogeneity, the MBL results should be interpreted cautiously, and better-designed RCTs should be assessed in the future.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Identifier: CRD42020160185.
PubMed: 36047581
DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2007340367 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jun 2019Veneer chipping and crown decementation are the most frequent failures in restorations using zirconia as an infrastructure. Increasing the roughness of the zirconia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evaluation of zirconia surface roughness after aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion and the erbium-YAG, neodymium-doped YAG, or CO lasers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Veneer chipping and crown decementation are the most frequent failures in restorations using zirconia as an infrastructure. Increasing the roughness of the zirconia surface has been suggested to address this problem.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal surface roughness, produced with aluminum oxide airborne-particle abrasion and the erbium yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG), neodymium-doped YAG, or CO lasers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The review identified relevant studies through December 2017 with no limit on the publication year in the search databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE via PubMed. The selected studies were submitted to a risk of bias assessment. The means and standard deviations of roughness were evaluated for the meta-analysis using Review Manager software.
RESULTS
The 17 studies that met all inclusion criteria presented a medium risk of bias. All the treatment methods tested were able to create a roughness on the yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal surface. The I test values presented a high heterogeneity among the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The presintered specimens submitted to airborne-particle abrasion had higher surface roughness compared with abrasion after the sintering process. Irradiation with the neodymium-doped YAG and CO lasers was destructive to the zirconia surfaces. The erbium laser used with lower energy intensity appears to be a promising method for surface treatment.
Topics: Aluminum; Aluminum Oxide; Carbon Dioxide; Erbium; Lasers, Solid-State; Materials Testing; Neodymium; Surface Properties; Yttrium; Zirconium
PubMed: 30711290
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.001 -
Clinical Oral Investigations May 2018The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant surfaces on prevalence rate reported by the studies adhering to the case definition of Sanz & Chapple 2012.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29218422
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2276-y -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Apr 2017Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Risk Factors; Surface Properties
PubMed: 27860171
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12457