Faculty Bibliography

Data sourcesMedline via PubMed, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched until April 2014.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoTN-A) with placebo in patients with painful trigeminal (TN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) reporting changes in pain intensity in patients aged 19 years and older available in English were included.Data extraction and synthesisThree authors independently assessed for inclusion, extracted standard data and assessed for risk of bias. The primary outcomes were baseline and post treatment intensity of pain and patients reporting pain relief of 50% or greater.For continuous outcomes the treatment effect was measured as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For dichotomous outcome of reduction of pain of 50% or more, relative risk (risk ratio) with 95% CIs was reported. Statistical heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's test for heterogeneity and quantified by the I2 statistic. Results were combined using random-effects model in the presence of statistical heterogeneity otherwise fixed effect model was used.ResultsSix studies were included. The effects of the interventions were presented in three meta-analyses. Mean difference in post treatment pain (six studies) pooled results showed a reduction of -3.009 in the VAS (95% CI -4.566 to -1.453 p<0.001) with the use of BoTN-A. Standardised difference in mean post treatment pain (six studies) was -0.918 (95% CI -1.197 to -0.639 p<0.001) in favor of BoTN-A. For the percentage of patients experiencing 50% pain reduction (three studies) absolute risk difference and relative risk were calculated (RR 2.892, 95% CI 1.726 to 4.848 p<0.001) in favour of the use of BoTN-A.ConclusionsThe authors concluded that there is moderate evidence regarding the efficacy of BoTN-A in treating patients with trigeminal neuralgia and postherpetic neuralgia.

Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched until October 2017.Study selectionClinical trials, controlled trials, retrospective studies and case series containing at least ten cases with a minimum follow-up of ten years of patients treated with marsupialisation or decompression with or without enucleation, and enucleation alone evaluating the recurrence rates.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed for eligibility and extracted data. The level of agreement between reviewers was calculated. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index of Nonrandomised Studies (MINORS) scoring system and the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).Data were combined in meta-analysis using a fixed effect model of the calculated odds ratio with 95% CI for each comparison.ResultsTwenty-nine studies were included in the review. Of those 25 were characterised as retrospective studies, one cohort and three case series. Of the 1321 cases 99 were marsupialisation; 45 received marsupialisation followed by enucleation; 27 were treated by decompression; 101 received decompression followed by enucleation and 1049 cases were treated by enucleation alone.The recurrence rate for decompression followed by enucleation was 11.9% (95% CI 5.6 to 18.2%), marsupialisation followed by enucleation 17% (95% CI 6.6 to 28.9%), enucleation 20.8% (95% CI 18.3 to 23.2% ), decompression alone 18.5% (95% CI 8.2 to 28.9%) and marsupialisation 18.2% (95% CI 10.6 to 25.8%).ConclusionsThe authors concluded that there is a significant superiority for OKC treatment when decompression is used before enucleation OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.08).

Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library were searched until May 2016. Unpublished data were searched in Pro-Quest Dissertation, Abstracts and Thesis and Google Scholar, supplemented with manual search of the included studies references. No language restriction was used.Study selectionAll types of study designs were included, except case reports, comparing CBCT data with conventional radiographs. The primary outcome was: diagnostic accuracy between modalities, agreement in position, treatment planning and outcome efficacy. The secondary outcome was intermodality agreement in lateral root resorption detection and intra and inter-observer agreement values.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently selected the studies for inclusion, performed data extraction and evaluated risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by discussions and reaching consensus. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias for case-controlled and cohort studies and a modified version for cross-sectional studies. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool was used to rate diagnostic accuracy studies.ResultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria, two on diagnostic accuracy. The remaining six included 292 impacted canines in 224 patients. Outcomes were presented as calculated level of agreement and statistical significance for each primary outcome reported. Based on the diagnostic accuracy of two in vitro studies, the CBCT accuracy ranged from 50% to 95% while for conventional radiographs it ranged from 39% to 85%.The other six studies reported inter-modalities agreement in localisation (six studies) and treatment planning agreement (three studies). The inter-modalities agreement varied from 0.20 to 0.82, with observed agreement of 64% to 84% in localisation of canine. The treatment planning agreement varied from 0.36 to 0.72.ConclusionsThe authors concluded that CBCT is more accurate than conventional radiographs in localising maxillary impacted canines and there is a broad range of inter-observer and modalities agreement for location and treatment planning. There is no robust evidence to support using CBCT as first line imaging method.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health and Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trial Registries, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid and LILACS BIREME, clinicaltrials.com and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for published and ongoing trials until October of 2016.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of periodontal treatment in reducing or preventing perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality with no exclusions of language or date of publication. Primary perinatal outcomes included: gestational age at birth, birth weight, small for gestational age and perinatal mortality, while the primary maternal outcomes included mortality, pre-eclampsia and treatment adverse effects.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened for inclusion and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool.Dichotomous results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and continuous data were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval. Random-effects model was used for combining results.The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsFifteen studies with a total of 7,161 participants met the inclusion criteria.Eleven studies (n = 5671) compared periodontal treatment with no treatment. For the outcome preterm birth before <37 weeks a calculated RR of 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.10 shows no clear difference. From seven studies (n = 3470) there is evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce birth weight <2500g (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48-0.95).There is unclear evidence on the effect of periodontal treatment on preterm birth <35 weeks, <32 weeks, perinatal mortality and pre-eclampsia.Three studies with 3,610 participants showed no evidence of difference in the outcome small for gestational age: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.16.ConclusionsThere is no clear evidence that periodontal treatment during pregnancy has an effect on preterm birth. There is some evidence that it may reduce incidence of low birth weight.There is insufficient evidence to define what type of periodontal treatment is superior in preventing any adverse pregnancy outcome.

Data sourcesElectronic searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and HTA until March 2017. Also handsearched referenced in the original articles. Grey literature was not included.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials with more than ten participants with oro-facial pain duration of more than three months were sub grouped into: TMD-muscle pain (TMD-m), TMD-joint pain (TMD-j), burning mouth syndrome (BMS) and other oro-facial pain. Studies include any pharmacological treatment against another pharmacological, non-pharmacological treatment, placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity and the secondary outcome was the effect on quality of life.Data extraction and synthesisThree authors formed three review pairs that independently checked for inclusion. Four pairs of reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services tool. Two authors independently extracted data that were later assessed according to a modified GRADE system.ResultsForty-one studies, rated medium to low risk of bias, were included in qualitative analysis on patients with TMD-j pain (15 studies, n = 790), TMD-m pain (nine studies, n = 375), BMS (17 studies n = 868). For the TMD-j group five studies support NSAIDs and nine corticosteroid and hyaluronate injections. Eight of the nine TMD-m studies were included in a network meta-analysis (NMA), they support cyclobenzaprine, botulinum toxin injections and topical treatment with Ping-On ointment. Five of the 17 BMS studies included in a NMA support topical capsaicin and clonazepam. Of the remaining 12, five showed no effect while the remaining support alpha lipoic acid, gabapentin, clonazepam, amisulpride and SSRIs.ConclusionsBased on the results of the NMA the authors concluded that clonazepam and capsaicin are effective for BMS while cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant, has a positive treatment effect on TMJ-m. Evidence from the narrative synthesis suggests NSAIDs, corticosteroid and hyaluronate injections are effective for TMD-j pain.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched until July 2015 followed by hand searching of relevant references.Study selectionUsing no language restrictions, two authors independently assessed for inclusion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications (OAC) and oro-antral fistulae (OAF) due to dental procedures. Quasi-RCTs and crossover trials were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently assessed for inclusion, resolved disagreement by discussion and a third reviewer was consulted if necessary.Qualitywas determined independently by using GRADE 2004.For the dichotomous outcome complete closure, they expressed the estimate effect as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA single study that started with 22 participants was included in the review where the overall risk of bias was judged as unclear. The main outcome was complete closure. The study compared pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) with buccal flap (BF) and showed no difference in the closure of OAC, with a calculated RR of 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20.ConclusionsVery low quality evidence from a small single study provided insufficient proof to judge if there is a difference in the effectiveness of the interventions.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embase, Ovid, CancerLit via PubMed. MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.The reference lists of included studies and existing reviews were manually searched.Study selectionRandomised control trials (RCTs) including patients diagnosed with oral leukoplakia comparing any treatment to placebo or no treatment were included with no restrictions on language or date of publication.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently checked for inclusion, performed data extraction using a specially designed form, and assessed the risk of bias for each study and by domain over all studies. The primary outcome considered was onset of oral cancer reported as dichotomous data. Secondary outcomes were clinical resolution, histological changes and adverse events that were mostly reported as ordinal data.ResultsFourteen studies with 909 participants were included in the review. Of the included studies, four compared topical interventions to placebo, nine compared systemic interventions to placebo, and one compared a combination of topical and systemic treatments versus placebo. The risk of bias was considered to be low in one study, unclear in seven, and high for the remaining six. Only three studies provided usable data on the primary outcome: cancer incidence. Clinical improvement was achieved in three studies using: systemic vitamin A or retinoids (two studies) and systemic beta-carotene or carotenoids (one study). Only two studies using beta-carotene or carotenoids were meta-analysed, showing no benefit on the outcome cancer development.ConclusionsThere is no evidence that any of the active treatments included work better than placebo in reducing the risk of developing oral cancer.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Handsearch of the proceedings from the British Society for Oral Medicine (BSOM), British Society for Dental Research (BSDR) and the International Association for Dental Research (IADR).Study selectionAll included studies were randomised placebo controlled trials comparing a treatment to placebo with no language or year of publication restrictions. Symptom relief and changes in quality of life were considered primary outcomes.Data extraction and synthesisTeams of two authors independently screened for inclusion, extracted data using an ad-hoc tool and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane's tool. Outcomes were analysed for <3 months (short term) and >/=3 to