-
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searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.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 -
PloS One 2021Cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis affect a million people yearly, leading to skin lesions and potentially disfiguring mucosal disease. Current treatments can...
Cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis affect a million people yearly, leading to skin lesions and potentially disfiguring mucosal disease. Current treatments can have severe side effects. Allylamine drugs, like terbinafine, are safe, including during pregnancy. This review assesses efficacy and safety of allylamines for the treatment of cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. It followed the PRISMA statement for reporting and was preregistered in PROSPERO(CRD4201809068). MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Global Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and clinical trial registers were searched from their creation to May 24th, 2020. All original human, animal, and in vitro studies concerning allylamines and cutaneous or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis were eligible for inclusion. Comparators-if any-included both placebo or alternative cutaneous or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis treatments. Complete cure, growth inhibition, or adverse events served as outcomes. The search identified 312 publications, of which 22 were included in this systematic review. There were one uncontrolled and two randomised controlled trials. The only well-designed randomised controlled trial that compared the treatment efficacy of oral terbinafine versus intramuscular meglumine antimoniate in 80 Leismania tropica infected patients showed a non-significant lower cure rate for terbinafine vs meglumine antimoniate (38% vs 53%). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the small number of studies, their heterogeneity, and low quality. This systematic review shows that there is no evidence of efficacy of allylamine monotherapy against cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. Further trials of allylamines should be carefully considered as the outcomes of an adequately designed trial were disappointing and in vitro studies indicate minimal effective concentrations that are not achieved in the skin during standard doses. However, the in vitro synergistic effects of allylamines combined with triazole drugs warrant further exploration.
Topics: Allylamine; Animals; Humans; Leishmania; Leishmaniasis, Cutaneous; Leishmaniasis, Mucocutaneous; Prognosis
PubMed: 33826660
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249628 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Colesevelam is a second-generation bile acid sequestrant that has effects on both blood glucose and lipid levels. It provides a promising approach to glycaemic and lipid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colesevelam is a second-generation bile acid sequestrant that has effects on both blood glucose and lipid levels. It provides a promising approach to glycaemic and lipid control simultaneously.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
Several electronic databases were searched, among these The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey and Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (all up to January 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared colesevelam with or without other oral hypoglycaemic agents with a placebo or a control intervention with or without oral hypoglycaemic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias of trials using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Six RCTs ranging from 8 to 26 weeks investigating 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effects of colesevelam with or without other antidiabetic drug treatments with placebo only (one study) or combined with antidiabetic drug treatments. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fasting blood glucose with a mean difference (MD) of -15 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -22 to - 8), P < 0.0001; 1075 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. There was also a reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in favour of colesevelam (MD -0.5% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.4), P < 0.00001; 1315 participants, 5 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. However, the single trial comparing colesevelam to placebo only (33 participants) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two arms - in fact, in both arms HbA1c increased. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistical significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol with a MD of -13 mg/dL (95% CI -17 to - 9), P < 0.00001; 886 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes were infrequently observed. No other serious adverse effects were reported. There was no documentation of complications of the disease, morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Colesevelam added on to antidiabetic agents showed significant effects on glycaemic control. However, there is a limited number of studies with the different colesevelam/antidiabetic agent combinations. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of colesevelam treatment is necessary to assess the long-term effects, particularly in the management of cardiovascular risks as well as the reduction in micro- and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, long-term data on health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality also need to be investigated.
Topics: Allylamine; Blood Glucose; Colesevelam Hydrochloride; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fasting; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23235674
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009361.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 1999To identify and synthesise the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness of topical treatments for superficial fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify and synthesise the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness of topical treatments for superficial fungal infections of the skin and nails of the feet.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
INTERVENTIONS
Topical treatments for superficial fungal infections.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Cure confirmed by culture and microscopy for skin and by culture for nails in patients with clinically diagnosed fungal infections.
RESULTS
Of 126 trials identified in 121 papers, 72 (57.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Placebo controlled trials yielded pooled relative risks of failure to cure skin infections: allylamines (0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.38); azoles (0.54, 0.42 to 0.68); undecenoic acid (0.28, 0. 11 to 0.74); and tolnaftate (0.46, 0.17 to 1.22). Although meta-analysis of 11 trials comparing allylamines and azoles showed a relative risk of failure to cure of 0.88 (0.78 to 0.99) in favour of allylamines, there was evidence of language bias. Seven reports in English favoured allylamines (0.79, 0.69 to 0.91), but four reports in foreign languages showed no difference between the two drugs (1. 01, 0.90 to 1.13). Neither trial of nail infections showed significant differences between alternative topical treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Allylamines, azoles, and undecenoic acid were efficacious in placebo controlled trials. There are sufficient comparative trials to judge relative efficacy only between allylamines and azoles. Allylamines cure slightly more infections than azoles but are much more expensive than azoles. The most cost effective strategy is first to treat with azoles or undecenoic acid and to use allylamines only if that fails.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Allylamine; Antifungal Agents; Azoles; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermatomycoses; Foot Dermatoses; Humans; Nonprescription Drugs; Onychomycosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 10398626
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7202.79