Faculty Bibliography

Data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were searched with no language restrictions.Study selectionRandomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials using the third molar model were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief (based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) and summed pain intensity difference (SPID) data) was calculated for all three drugs at both two and six hours post-dosing and meta-analysed for comparison.ResultsSeven studies involving 2241 patients were included. Two studies were considered to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk and two unclear risk of bias. Ibuprofen was found to be a superior analgesic to paracetamol at several doses, with high quality evidence suggesting that ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1000 mg paracetamol based on pain relief (estimated from TOTPAR data) and the use of rescue medication meta-analyses. Risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief (based on TOTPAR) at six hours was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.69; five trials) favouring 400 mg ibuprofen over 1000 mg paracetamol, RR for not using rescue medication (also favouring ibuprofen) was 1.50 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.79; four trials). For combined drug RR for at least 50% of the maximum pain relief over six hours of 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg) (one trial; moderate quality evidence). RR not using rescue medication 1.60 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.88) (two trials; moderate quality evidence). Adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups, but no formal analysis could be undertaken.ConclusionsThere is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol at doses of 200 mg to 512 mg and 600 mg to 1000 mg respectively based on pain relief and use of rescue medication data collected at six hours postoperatively. The majority of this evidence (five out of six trials) compared ibuprofen 400 mg with paracetamol 1000 mg, these are the most frequently prescribed doses in clinical practice. The novel combination drug is showing encouraging results based on the outcomes from two trials when compared to the single drugs.

BACKGROUND:The sense of taste is very much essential to the overall health of the individual. It is a necessary component to enjoying one's food, which in turn provides nutrition to an individual. Any disturbance in taste perception can hamper the quality of life in such patients by influencing their appetite, body weight and psychological well-being. Taste disorders have been treated using different modalities of treatment and there is no consensus for the best intervention. Hence this Cochrane systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances. SEARCH METHODS/METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 5 March 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 March 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 5 March 2014) and AMED via OVID (1985 to 5 March 2014). We also searched the relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings from the International Association of Dental Research/American Association of Dental Research (to 5 March 2014), Association for Research in Otolaryngology (to 5 March 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (to 5 March 2014), World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (to 5 March 2014) and International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal (to 5 March 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA/METHODS:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological agent with a control intervention or any non-pharmacological agent with a control intervention. We also included cross-over trials in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:Two authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Wherever possible, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse events information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:We included nine trials (seven parallel and two cross-over RCTs) with 566 participants. We assessed three trials (33.3%) as having a low risk of bias, four trials (44.5%) at high risk of bias and two trials (22.2%) as having an unclear risk of bias. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.Of these, eight trials with 529 people compared zinc supplements to placebo for patients with taste disorders. The participants in two trials were children and adolescents with respective mean ages of 10 and 11.2 years and the other six trials had adult participants. Out of these eight, two trials assessed the patient reported outcome for improvement in taste acuity using zinc supplements (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; very low quality evidence). We included three trials in the meta-analysis for overall taste improvement (effect size 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; moderate quality evidence). Two other trials described the results as taste acuity improvement and we conducted subgroup analyses due to clinical heterogeneity. One trial described the results as taste recognition improvement for each taste sensation and we analysed this separately. We also analysed one cross-over trial separately using the first half of the results. None of the zinc trials tested taste discrimination. Only one trial tested taste discrimination using acupuncture (effect size 2.80, 95% CI -1.18 to 6.78; low quality evidence).Out of the eight trials using zinc supplementation, four reported adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase, and minor increase in blood triglycerides. No adverse events were reported in the acupuncture trial.None of the included trials could be included in the meta-analysis for health-related quality of life in taste disorder patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude on the role of zinc supplements to improve taste perception by patients, however we found moderate quality evidence that zinc supplements improve overall taste improvement in patients with zinc deficiency/idiopathic taste disorders. We also found low quality evidence that zinc supplements improve taste acuity in zinc deficient/idiopathic taste disorders and very low quality evidence for taste recognition improvement in children with taste disorders secondary to chronic renal failure. We did not find any evidence to conclude the role of zinc supplements for improving taste discrimination, or any evidence addressing health-related quality of life due to taste disorders.We found low quality evidence that is not sufficient to conclude on the role of acupuncture for improving taste discrimination in cases of idiopathic dysgeusia (distortion of taste) and hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste). We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of zinc supplements or acupuncture as none of the trials compared these interventions.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances.
Copyright

DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central register of controlled trials, Medline and Embase databases were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies that compared methods against a reference standard were included. Studies also needed to have sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, odds ratio or receiver operator curve (ROC) data or data reported so this could be calculated. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts and full text articles. Study quality was assessed using the GRADE criteria (www.gradeworkinggroup.org/). A qualitative summary was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included, none was considered to be of high quality, 11 were of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence that the digital intraoral radiographic technique is diagnostically as accurate as the conventional film technique. The same applies to Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions can be drawn regarding the accuracy of radiological examination in identifying various forms of periapical bone tissue changes or about the pulpal condition.

Data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline and Embase databases were searched with no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Bibliographies of identified publications were also checked for relevant studies, and authors were contacted to identify missing and unreported trials. The WHO International Trials Registry Platform was searched for ongoing studies, using the term 'oral lichen planus'.Study selectionRandomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of therapy for symptomatic OLP which compared treatment with a placebo or between treatments or no intervention were considered for this review.Data extraction and synthesisThe titles and abstracts of all reports identified were scanned independently by two review authors. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias and data were extracted. For dichotomous outcomes, the estimates of effects for the intervention were expressed as risk ratios (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous outcomes, mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were used to summarise the data. Meta-analyses were conducted for studies with similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures.ResultsTwenty-eight trials were included. Although topical steroids are considered first line treatment for symptomatic OLP, we identified no RCTs that compared steroids with placebo. There is no evidence from the three trials of pimecrolimus that this treatment is better than placebo in reducing pain from OLP. There is weak evidence from two trials, at unclear and high risk of bias respectively, that aloe vera may be associated with a reduction in pain compared to placebo, but it was not possible to pool the pain data from these trials. There is weak and unreliable evidence from two small trials, at high risk of bias, that cyclosporin may reduce pain and clinical signs of OLP, but meta-analysis of these trials was not possible.There were five trials that compared steroids with calcineurin inhibitors, each evaluating a different pair of interventions. There is no evidence from these trials that there is a difference between treatment with steroids compared to calcineurin inhibitors with regard to reducing pain associated with OLP. From six trials there is no evidence that any specific steroid therapy is more or less effective at reducing pain compared to another type or dose of steroid.ConclusionsFrom the 28 trials included in this systematic review, the wide range of interventions compared means there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of any specific treatment as being superior