Faculty Bibliography

Data sourcesElectronic databases searched were Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embassy Ovid, LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library, CINAHL EBSCO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database and VIP Database ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions on language or date of publication.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included evaluating OHC in the form of mouthwashes, swabs or toothbrushing or in combination in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers carried out data extraction independently. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled.ResultsThirty-eight RCTs (6,016 participants) were included. Five trials (13%) were assessed at low risk of bias, 26 studies (68%) high and seven studies (18%) of unclear risk of bias. There were four main comparisons; chlorhexidine (CHX mouthrinse or gel) versus placebo/usual care, toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing, powered versus manual toothbrushing and comparisons of oral care solutions.Evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 25% to about 19% (RR 0.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.61 to 0.89, P = 0.002, heterogeneity I2 = 31%). Number needed to treat (NNT) = 17 (95% CI 10 to 33).There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.18, I2 = 0%, 15 RCTs, 2163 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I2 = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence) or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I2 = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.The effect of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) is uncertain on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I2 = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost.Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias) and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P <0.001, I2 = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions.ConclusionsThe results from high quality evidence found that oral hygiene care (OHC), including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel, reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 25% to about 19%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay.There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.

Data sourcesThe authors searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid and Embase Ovid. The US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions regarding language and publication date. The authors hand-searched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis including comparison of surgical versus non-surgical treatment or different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer, postoperative pain and discomfort and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their risk of bias. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information. The authors combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and they used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies.ResultsThe review included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols.There was no clear evidence of superiority in the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or ten-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence). There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day one post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence). There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence).ConclusionsAvailable evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, as well as to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, with precisely-defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of silver diamine fluoride in arresting and preventing caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (coronal and root caries) compared to any other intervention including placebo or no treatment

Data sourcesThe review searched for published and ongoing trials in several databases with no restrictions on language or date of publication which included the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials, Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinical trial.gov.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials were considered that evaluated any intervention compared with another or with placebo for treating postoperative bleeding (PEB), post extraction. The primary outcome measures sought were: bleeding, amount of blood loss and cessation time required to control bleeding. The secondary outcomes: patient reported outcomes, such as pain or discomfort and adverse events.Data extraction and synthesisThree pairs of review authors independently screened the records.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1526 articles and abstracts. After removal of duplicates, 943 records were screened. Thirty-four full texts were examined. No trials met the inclusion criteria for the review.ConclusionsWe were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

Data sourcesRelevant databases were searched for the review such as the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Medline, EMBASE, clinical trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus non-bonded class I and II amalgam restorations in permanent molars and premolars.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened papers and extracted data.ResultsOne trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived and 55 of 60 restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post insertion sensitivity was not statistically significant at baseline and for the two-year follow-up. No fractures or differences in the marginal adaptation were reported.ConclusionsThere is no evidence either to claim or to refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians be mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.

BACKGROUND:Resin-based composite (RBC) is currently accepted as a viable material for the restoration of caries for posterior permanent teeth requiring surgical treatment. Despite the fact that the thermal conductivity of the RBC restorative material closely approximates that of natural tooth structure, postoperative hypersensitivity is sometimes still an issue. Dental cavity liners have historically been used to protect the pulp from the toxic effects of some dental restorative materials and to prevent the pain of thermal conductivity by placing an insulating layer between restorative material and the remaining tooth structure. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this review was to assess the effects of using dental cavity liners in the placement of Class I and Class II resin-based composite posterior restorations in permanent teeth in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS:Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 25 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 25 May 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 25 May 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 25 May 2016) and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 25 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the use of liners under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent teeth (in both adults and children). We included both parallel and split-mouth designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We utilized standard methodological procedures prescribed by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. Two review authors screened the search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion against the review inclusion criteria. We conducted risk of bias assessments and data extraction independently and in duplicate. Where information was unclear we contacted study authors for clarification. MAIN RESULTS:Eight studies, recruiting over 700 participants, compared the use of dental cavity liners to no liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.Seven studies evaluated postoperative hypersensitivity measured by various methods. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. There was inconsistent evidence regarding postoperative hypersensitivity (either measured using cold response or patient-reported), with a benefit shown at some, but not all, time points (low-quality evidence).Four trials measured restoration longevity. Two of the studies were judged to be at high risk and two at unclear risk of bias. No difference in restoration failure rates were shown at one year follow-up, with no failures reported in either group for three of the four studies; the fourth study had a risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.00) (low-quality evidence). Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at two years follow-up and, again, no failures were shown in either group.No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is inconsistent, low-quality evidence regarding the difference in postoperative hypersensitivity subsequent to placing a dental cavity liner under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth in adults or children 15 years or older. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate a difference in the longevity of restorations placed with or without dental cavity liners.

DATA SOURCES/METHODS:An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2015. References of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. Study selection: Prospective, retrospective and randomised clinical trials that compared marginal bone loss and failure rates between smokers and non-smokers. Implant failure was considered as total loss of the implant. Studies with patients who had periodontal disease prior to treatment or who had metabolic diseases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS/METHODS:Two reviewers were involved in the research and screening process and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised clinical trials. Data extracted from the studies included, when available: follow up period, number of subjects, smoking status, number of implants placed, implant system, implant length and diameter, healing period, antibiotics and mouth-rinse use, marginal bone loss, failure rate and drop-outs. For binary outcomes (implant failure) the estimate of the intervention effect was expressed in the form of an odds ratio (OR) with the confidence interval (CI) of 95%. For continuous outcomes (marginal bone loss) the average and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. Meta-analysis was performed for studies with similar outcomes, I(2) a statistical test was used to express the heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was explored as well. RESULTS:A total of 15 observational studies were included in the review. The number of participants ranged from 60 to 1727 and the average age was 52.5 years. The follow-up period ranged from eight to 240 months. The total number of implants placed was 5840 in smokers and 14,683 in non-smokers. The Branemak system, (Noble Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden), was the most commonly used implant system. There was a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss favouring the non-smoking group (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.07-0.90). There was an increase in marginal bone loss in the maxillae of smokers compared to the mandible (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.55) and a statically significant difference in implant failure in favour of the non-smoking group OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.68-2.30. CONCLUSIONS:The risk of marginal bone loss and implant failure is increased in smokers compared to non-smokers, however, the results should be interpreted with caution since the data from the review are provided by retrospective and cohort studies.

DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Electronic searches were undertaken in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register as well as hand searching. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:Clinical human studies, either randomised or not, providing outcome data for dental implant failure in smokers and non-smokers in any group of patients with no follow-up restrictions. Patients smoking a minimum of one cigarette a day were classified as smokers and implant failure was considered as the complete loss of the implant.Data extraction and synthesisThree authors independently participated in the inclusion criteria and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Quality assessment of the studies was performed using a scale to appraise observational studies. From the selected studies, data were extracted when available which included year of publication, study design, country, setting, number of patients, type of smokers, age, follow-up, days of antibiotic prophylaxis, failure, postoperative infection, marginal bone loss, implant surface, dental arch receiving implants, type of prosthetic rehabilitation and opposing dentition. For the meta-analysis, implant failure and postoperative infection were evaluated as dichotomous outcomes, while weighted mean differences were used for marginal bone loss as a continuous outcome. The statistical unit was the implant. Heterogeneity was calculated using I(2) test. RESULTS:From 1432 records identified, 107 publications were included in the review for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. One hundred and four studies compared implant failure rates. From the total studies, the authors judged 85 to be of high quality and 22 of moderate quality. The meta-analysis for failure rate resulted in a statistically significant overall result of risk ratio (RR) of 2.23 (95% CI 1.96-2.53) heterogeneity of I(2): 51%. The meta-analysis of four studies evaluating the risk of postoperative infections in smokers presented a statistically significant result with an RR: 2.01, 95% CI 1.09-3.72, heterogeneity I(2): 0%, and the marginal bone loss had an overall statistically significant difference of MD 0.32, 95% CI 0,21-043; heterogeneity in this case was I(2): 95%. CONCLUSIONS:The insertion of implants in smokers affected the failure rates, the risk of postoperative infections, as well as the marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies.