-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2018The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of... (Review)
Review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure ( = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications ( = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30513764
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54060095 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent impact on implant failures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Implant failure (IF) was the primary outcome, while biological/mechanical and the causes/timing associated with IF were set as secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses for the binary outcome IF and odds ratio were performed to investigate the association with medications.
RESULTS
A final selection of 17 articles was screened for qualitative assessment. As such, five studies focused on evaluating the association of implant failure and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), two on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), seven on bisphosphonates (BPs), and one on anti-hypertensives (AHTNs). For PPIs, the fixed effect model estimated a difference of IF rates of 4.3%, indicating significantly higher IF rates in the test compared to the control group (p < 0.5). Likewise, for SSRIs, the IF was shown to be significantly higher in the individuals taking SSRIs (p < 0.5) as estimated a difference of 7.5%. No subset meta-analysis could be conducted for AHTNs medications as only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which revealed an increased survival rate of AHTN medication. None of the other medications yielded significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review showed an association of PPIs and SSRIs with an increased implant failure rate. Hence, clinicians considering implant therapy should be aware of possible medication-related implant failures.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antihypertensive Agents; Bone and Bones; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diphosphonates; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 30328197
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13137 -
Human Reproduction Update Nov 2022To provide the optimal milieu for implantation and fetal development, the female reproductive system must orchestrate uterine dynamics with the appropriate hormones...
BACKGROUND
To provide the optimal milieu for implantation and fetal development, the female reproductive system must orchestrate uterine dynamics with the appropriate hormones produced by the ovaries. Mature oocytes may be fertilized in the fallopian tubes, and the resulting zygote is transported toward the uterus, where it can implant and continue developing. The cervix acts as a physical barrier to protect the fetus throughout pregnancy, and the vagina acts as a birth canal (involving uterine and cervix mechanisms) and facilitates copulation. Fertility can be compromised by pathologies that affect any of these organs or processes, and therefore, being able to accurately model them or restore their function is of paramount importance in applied and translational research. However, innate differences in human and animal model reproductive tracts, and the static nature of 2D cell/tissue culture techniques, necessitate continued research and development of dynamic and more complex in vitro platforms, ex vivo approaches and in vivo therapies to study and support reproductive biology. To meet this need, bioengineering is propelling the research on female reproduction into a new dimension through a wide range of potential applications and preclinical models, and the burgeoning number and variety of studies makes for a rapidly changing state of the field.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
This review aims to summarize the mounting evidence on bioengineering strategies, platforms and therapies currently available and under development in the context of female reproductive medicine, in order to further understand female reproductive biology and provide new options for fertility restoration. Specifically, techniques used in, or for, the uterus (endometrium and myometrium), ovary, fallopian tubes, cervix and vagina will be discussed.
SEARCH METHODS
A systematic search of full-text articles available in PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 2000 and September 2021. The search terms included: bioengineering, reproduction, artificial, biomaterial, microfluidic, bioprinting, organoid, hydrogel, scaffold, uterus, endometrium, ovary, fallopian tubes, oviduct, cervix, vagina, endometriosis, adenomyosis, uterine fibroids, chlamydia, Asherman's syndrome, intrauterine adhesions, uterine polyps, polycystic ovary syndrome and primary ovarian insufficiency. Additional studies were identified by manually searching the references of the selected articles and of complementary reviews. Eligibility criteria included original, rigorous and accessible peer-reviewed work, published in English, on female reproductive bioengineering techniques in preclinical (in vitro/in vivo/ex vivo) and/or clinical testing phases.
OUTCOMES
Out of the 10 390 records identified, 312 studies were included for systematic review. Owing to inconsistencies in the study measurements and designs, the findings were assessed qualitatively rather than by meta-analysis. Hydrogels and scaffolds were commonly applied in various bioengineering-related studies of the female reproductive tract. Emerging technologies, such as organoids and bioprinting, offered personalized diagnoses and alternative treatment options, respectively. Promising microfluidic systems combining various bioengineering approaches have also shown translational value.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The complexity of the molecular, endocrine and tissue-level interactions regulating female reproduction present challenges for bioengineering approaches to replace female reproductive organs. However, interdisciplinary work is providing valuable insight into the physicochemical properties necessary for reproductive biological processes to occur. Defining the landscape of reproductive bioengineering technologies currently available and under development for women can provide alternative models for toxicology/drug testing, ex vivo fertility options, clinical therapies and a basis for future organ regeneration studies.
Topics: Animals; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Bioengineering; Embryo Implantation; Genitalia, Female; Reproduction; Uterus
PubMed: 35652272
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmac025 -
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology... Dec 2022There is a growing body of human, animal and in vitro studies on vitamin D (vit D) substitution in endometriosis. The aim of this systematic review is to critically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a growing body of human, animal and in vitro studies on vitamin D (vit D) substitution in endometriosis. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise and qualitatively synthesize the results of the available studies that examine the supplementation of vit D for endometriosis treatment.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted in four electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase) and grey literature for original research articles on humans, animals and in vitro models published in any language.
RESULTS
Four human studies, four animal studies and four in vitro studies were included. Quantitative synthesis of human studies showed no significant effect of vit D intake for dysmenorrhea (2 studies, 44 vit D vs 44 placebo, mean -0.71, 95% CI -1.94, 0.51) and non-cyclic pelvic pain (2 studies, 42 vit D vs 38 placebo, mean 0.34, 95% CI -0.02, 0.71). Regarding reproductive outcomes in women with endometriosis after in vitro fertilization, the only available study showed no differences between women taking vit D and women taking placebo. Three of the four included animal studies showed regression of endometriotic implants when treated with vit D. The in vitro studies demonstrated that vit D decreases invasion and proliferation of endometriotic lesions without affecting apoptosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Although in vitro and animal studies suggest regression of the endometriotic implants and decrease of invasion and proliferation after vit D supplementation, this was not reflected in the results of the meta-analysis, which showed no benefit of vit D supplementation in patients with endometriosis and dysmenorrhea or non-cyclic pelvic pain as well as on the outcome of IVF treatment. However, given the heterogeneity and the diversity of the available studies, more research is required to shed light on the role of vit D supplementation in women with endometriosis.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Female; Endometriosis; Dysmenorrhea; Vitamin D; Vitamins; Pelvic Pain; Dietary Supplements
PubMed: 36578019
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-022-01051-9 -
International Journal of... Dec 2016To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament... (Review)
Review
To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament as well as to the hard tissue such as alveolar bone and cementum. Topical hyaluronic acid (HA) has recently been recognized as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease in addition to its use to improve healing after dental procedures. The aim of our work was to systematically review the published literature about potential effects of HA as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease, in addition to its use to improve healing after common dental procedures. Relevant published studies were found in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid using a combined keyword search or medical subject headings. At the end of our study selection process, 25 relevant publications were included, three of them regarding gingivitis, 13 of them relating to chronic periodontitis, seven of them relating to dental surgery, including implant and sinus lift procedures, and the remaining three articles describing oral ulcers. Not only does topical administration of HA play a pivotal key role in the postoperative care of patients undergoing dental procedures, but positive results were also generally observed in all patients with chronic inflammatory gingival and periodontal disease and in patients with oral ulcers.
Topics: Animals; Chronic Disease; Dentistry; Gingivitis; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Inflammation; Periodontitis
PubMed: 27280412
DOI: 10.1177/0394632016652906 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro- or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and peri-implantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified. Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included. Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls. Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.
CONCLUSION
Low-dose oral BP intake for osteoporosis treatment, in general, does not compromise implant therapy, that is, patients on ARDs do not lose more implants nor get more implant-related complications/failures comparing to implant patients without BP intake. There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of high-dose BPs or other widely used ARDs (e.g., denosumab), or on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures. Patients with high-dose ARD intake for management of malignancies, patients on oral BP over a longer period of time, and patients with comorbidities should be considered as high-risk patients for MRONJ.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 30306695
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13282 -
Contraception Dec 2016Women with medical conditions associated with increased risk for thrombosis generally should not use estrogen-containing contraceptives; however, less is known about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Women with medical conditions associated with increased risk for thrombosis generally should not use estrogen-containing contraceptives; however, less is known about progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) and thrombosis risk.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to identify evidence regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thromboembolism [stroke or acute myocardial infarction (AMI)] among women using POCs.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through January 2016 for studies examining thrombosis among women using POCs. We included studies which examined women with medical conditions associated with thrombosis risk, as well as studies of women in the general population (either without these conditions or who were not specified to have these conditions). Hormonal contraceptives of interest included progestin-only pills (POPs), injectables, implants and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs). Outcomes of interest included VTE, stroke and AMI.
RESULTS
There were 26 articles of good to poor quality that met inclusion criteria; 9 studies examined women with medical conditions and 20 examined women in the general population. Two studies found that, among smokers and women with certain thrombogenic mutations, use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) had elevated odds of VTE compared with nonsmokers or those without mutations, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped with odds among nonusers. One study found that, among women with previous VTE, use of POCs (including DMPA) was associated with a nonsignificant increased odds of recurrent VTE (all of which were among DMPA users); two other studies that examined POCs other than DMPA did not observe an association with recurrent VTE. Two studies found that use of DMPA among healthy women was also associated with increased odds of VTE. Two studies found that use of POCs for therapeutic indications was associated with increased odds of VTE. Studies did not find increased odds of VTE with POPs for contraceptive purposes, implants or LNG-IUDs nor were there increased odds of stroke or AMI with any POCs.
CONCLUSION
The majority of evidence identified by this systematic review did not suggest an increase in odds for venous or arterial events with use of most POCs. Limited evidence suggested increased odds of VTE with use of injectables (three studies) and use of POCs for therapeutic indications (two studies, one with POCs unspecified and the other with POPs). Any increase in risk likely translates to a small increase in absolute numbers of thrombotic events at the population level.
Topics: Contraception; Female; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Progestins; Risk Assessment; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism; Weight Gain
PubMed: 27153743
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.014 -
JAMA Cardiology Jun 2021Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care; however, the optimal therapeutic modality to achieve early rhythm control is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs in patients with paroxysmal AF.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and various major scientific conference sessions from January 1, 2000, through November 23, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 12 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of ablation vs AADs as first-line therapy in adults with AF. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, including 1212 patients.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently extracted data. Reporting was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Analysis was performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, and results are presented as 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Main outcomes were safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs. Trials were evaluated as having low risk of selection and attrition biases, high risk of performance bias, and with unclear risk for detection biases due to unblinding and open-label designs.
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCTs involving 1212 patients with AF were included (609 were randomized to AF ablation and 603 to drug therapy; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years). Compared with AADs, catheter ablation use was associated with reductions in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (32.3% vs 53%; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74; P < .001; I2 = 40%), with a number needed to treat with ablation to prevent 1 arrhythmia of 5. Use of ablation was also associated with reduced symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (11.8% vs 26.4%; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.72; P = .001; I2 = 54%) and hospitalization (5.6% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53; P < .001) with no significant difference in serious adverse events between the groups (4.2% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.81-2.85; P = .19).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials including first-line therapy of patients with paroxysmal AF, catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias and hospitalizations, with no difference in major adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Hospitalization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33909022
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0852 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. POCs include injectables, intrauterine contraception,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) are appropriate for many women who cannot or should not take estrogen. POCs include injectables, intrauterine contraception, implants, and oral contraceptives. Many POCs are long-acting, cost-effective methods of preventing pregnancy. However, concern about weight gain can deter the initiation of contraceptives and cause early discontinuation among users.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to evaluate the association between progestin-only contraceptive use and changes in body weight.
SEARCH METHODS
Until 4 August 2016, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the initial review, we contacted investigators to identify other trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered comparative studies that examined a POC versus another contraceptive method or no contraceptive. The primary outcome was mean change in body weight or mean change in body composition. We also considered the dichotomous outcome of loss or gain of a specified amount of weight.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data. Non-randomized studies (NRS) need to control for confounding factors. We used adjusted measures for the primary effects in NRS or the results of matched analysis from paired samples. If the report did not provide adjusted measures for the primary analysis, we used unadjusted outcomes. For RCTs and NRS without adjusted measures, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 22 eligible studies that included a total of 11,450 women. With 6 NRS added to this update, the review includes 17 NRS and 5 RCTs. By contraceptive method, the review has 16 studies of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), 4 of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraception (LNG-IUC), 5 for implants, and 2 for progestin-only pills.Comparison groups did not differ significantly for weight change or other body composition measure in 15 studies. Five studies with moderate or low quality evidence showed differences between study arms. Two studies of a six-rod implant also indicated some differences, but the evidence was low quality.Three studies showed differences for DMPA users compared with women not using a hormonal method. In a retrospective study, weight gain (kg) was greater for DMPA versus copper (Cu) IUC in years one (MD 2.28, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.77), two (MD 2.71, 95% CI 2.12 to 3.30), and three (MD 3.17, 95% CI 2.51 to 3.83). A prospective study showed adolescents using DMPA had a greater increase in body fat (%) compared with a group not using a hormonal method (MD 11.00, 95% CI 2.64 to 19.36). The DMPA group also had a greater decrease in lean body mass (%) (MD -4.00, 95% CI -6.93 to -1.07). A more recent retrospective study reported greater mean increases with use of DMPA versus Cu IUC for weight (kg) at years 1 (1.3 vs 0.2), 4 (3.5 vs 1.9), and 10 (6.6 vs 4.9).Two studies reported a greater mean increase in body fat mass (%) for POC users versus women not using a hormonal method. The method was LNG-IUC in two studies (reported means 2.5 versus -1.3; P = 0.029); (MD 1.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.75). One also studied a desogestrel-containing pill (MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.52). Both studies showed a greater decrease in lean body mass among POC users.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We considered the overall quality of evidence to be low; more than half of the studies had low quality evidence. The main reasons for downgrading were lack of randomizations (NRS) and high loss to follow-up or early discontinuation.These 22 studies showed limited evidence of change in weight or body composition with use of POCs. Mean weight gain at 6 or 12 months was less than 2 kg (4.4 lb) for most studies. Those with multiyear data showed mean weight change was approximately twice as much at two to four years than at one year, but generally the study groups did not differ significantly. Appropriate counseling about typical weight gain may help reduce discontinuation of contraceptives due to perceptions of weight gain.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Body Composition; Body Weight; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Weight Gain
PubMed: 27567593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008815.pub4 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2019Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently...
BACKGROUND
Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently recommended post-surgically. Despite its common use and many studies in this field, a systematic evaluation of the benefits after periodontal or implant surgery is-surprisingly-still missing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits of chlorhexidine rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery in terms of plaque and inflammation reduction potential. Furthermore, to screen whether the concentration changes or additives in CHX solutions reduce side effects associated with its use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for clinical trials, which compared CHX rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery with rinsing using placebo, non-staining formulations, or solutions with reduced concentrations of the active compound. Four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) were searched up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently identified and screened the literature.
RESULTS
From 691 titles identified, only eleven publications met the inclusion criteria and were finally included. Mainly early publications assessed the benefits of CHX over placebo rinsing, whereas more recent publications focused more on the evaluation of new formulations with regard to effectiveness and side effects. The use of CHX after surgery showed in general significant reduction in plaque (means of 29-86% after 1 week) and bleeding (up to 73%) as compared to placebo. No consensus, however, was found regarding the most beneficial CHX formulation avoiding side effects.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine rinsing helps to reduce biofilm formation and gingival inflammation after surgery. However, no additional reduction of periodontal probing depth over any given placebo or control solution could be found irrespective of whether CHX was used or not. The use of additives such as antidiscoloration systems (ADS) or herbal extracts may reduce side effects while retaining efficacy.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that CHX may represent a valuable chemo-preventive tool immediately after surgery, during the time period in which oral hygiene capacity is compromised. To reduce the side effects of CHX and maintain comparable clinical effects, rinsing with less concentrated formulations (e.g., 0.12%) showed the most promising results so far.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biofilms; Chlorhexidine; Dental Implantation; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Periodontal Diseases; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30535817
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2761-y