Faculty Bibliography

Data sourcesAn electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library and SciELO databases up to September 2016. References of included studies were also searched. English language restriction was applied.Study selectionClinical monitoring studies with at least six months of follow-up, including retrospective studies, prospective studies, and controlled and randomised clinical trials. Clinical case studies were excluded from the sample and only studies with a minimum of five patients were considered. Adults with osseointegrated implants were considered for these studies. Exclusion criteria encompassed studies performed in vitro, animal studies, non-controlled clinical cases, studies with incomplete data or those unsuitable for data collection.Data extraction and synthesisFour reviewers were involved in the research and screening process and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was analysed using the bias scale from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Data extracted from the studies included, when available: author, year of publication, study country of origin, number of patients, number of implants and sites, implant type, implant length and diameter, oral rehabilitation installation time, peri-implant bone loss rate, survival rate of implants in each situation analysed, follow-up time of each study, study type and drugs administered for the treatment of osteoporosis. For binary outcomes (implant failure) the estimate of the intervention effect was expressed in the form of a relative risk (RR) 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. A statistical test was used to express the heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was explored as well.ResultsA total of 15 observational studies were included in the review. The total number of patients involved was 8859 (29,798 implants) and the average age was 63.03 years.The follow-up period ranged from 0.75 to 22 years with a mean of 5.85 years. The smallest diameter used was 3.3 mm and the shortest implant length was 7 mm.The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analysed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93-2.08; P = 0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50-1.89; P = 0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.05-0.30, P = 0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group.ConclusionsThe implant survival rate in bone tissue with osteoporosis was similar to that of the control group at the implant level (P = 0.11) and at the patient level (P = 0.94). In conclusion, implants placed in patients with systemic osteoporosis did not present higher failure rates than those placed in patients without osteoporosis.

DesignA randomised, single centre, double blind placebo controlled clinical trial involving 400 patients.InterventionThe inclusion criteria comprised systemically healthy patients between the ages of 18 and 35 years having mandibular molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, radiographically normal periapical area and no pain on biting or percussion. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ethics Committee at the School of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the Department of Endodontics.The independent Centre for Evidence Based Dentistry performed sequence generation and allocation concealment. For allocation concealment, two tablets of each medication were placed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed containers. Participants and operators were unaware of the assigned group for the duration of the study. Post-graduate students were calibrated to act as operators and supervisors from the department of endodontics evaluated their clinical performance.The participants received 40 mg of prednisolone or placebo tablets 30 minutes before single visit root canal treatment. Patients recorded the pain level 6, 12 and 24 hours after treatment on a 100mm visual analogue scale. All patients received a sham capsule to take if needed as a postoperative analgesic. If pain persisted an analgesic was prescribed.Outcome measureThe primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pain at three points; 6, 12 and 24 hrs. The secondary outcomes were pain intensity and the incidence of analgesic consumption. The relative risk reduction (RRR) and the number needed-to-treat (NNT) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the risk of pain incidence.ResultsOf the 670 patients assessed for eligibility, 400 were included in the study. Only two patients of the 400 were lost to follow-up with 398 patients (prednisolone group = 198; control group = 200) being included in the analysis; 259 were women and 141 men. The mean age was 29.45 -/+ 3.7 years in the prednisolone group and 28.97 -/+3.61 years in the control group. There was no significant difference for mean age (P = 0.164), gender distribution P = 0.123) or tooth type (P = 0.56) between the two groups. The relative risk reduction in pain incidence was 20.31% (95% CI: 12.03%, 27.82%) at six hours, 23.39% (95% CI: 14.75%, 31.16%) at 12 hours and 28.85% (95% CI: 18.08%, 38.20%) at 24 hours. Prednisolone had significantly less post-obturation pain intensity compared to placebo at 6, 12 and 24 hours (P < 0.001). The relative risk reduction in sham-capsule intake was 54% (95% CI: 38%, 66%) and in analgesic intake was 55% (95% CI: 3%, 79%). No adverse effects were recorded. The NNT (number needed to treat) was five (95% CI: 4, 9) at six hours, five (95% CI: 4, 8) at 12 hours and four at 24 hours (95% CI: 3, 7).ConclusionsPreoperative oral administration of a single dose of 40 mg prednisolone was beneficial for the control of postoperative pain up to 24hrs after single visit root canal treatment in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. The incidence of postoperative pain level and the need for postoperative analgesic intake decreased. The non-invasive route and minimal possible adverse events results in a favourable risk benefit-balance.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, LILACS, BIREME, Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), Zetoc Conference Proceedings, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, (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.Study selectionThe review included randomised controlled trials, irrespective of their language of publication or publication status. Participants could be outpatients or inpatients. The review included trials comparing any pharmacological agent regimen, prescribed prophylactically for salivary gland dysfunction prior to or during radiotherapy, with placebo, no intervention or an alternative pharmacological intervention. Comparisons of radiation techniques were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisStandard Cochrane methodological processes were followed.ResultsThirty-nine studies that randomised 3520 participants were included; the number of participants analysed varied by outcome and time point. The studies were ordered into 14 separate comparisons with meta-analysis only being possible in three of those. We found low quality evidence to show that amifostine, when compared to a placebo or no treatment control, might reduce the risk of moderate to severe xerostomia (grade 2 or higher on a 0 to 4 scale) at the end of radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.67; P = 0.001, three studies, 119 participants), and up to three months after radiotherapy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92; P = 0.01, five studies, 687 participants), but there is insufficient evidence that the effect is sustained up to 12 months after radiotherapy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.23; P = 0.21, seven studies, 682 participants). We found very low quality evidence that amifostine increased unstimulated salivary flow rate up to 12 months after radiotherapy, both in terms of mg of saliva per five minutes (mean difference (MD) 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; P = 0.006, one study, 27 participants), and incidence of producing greater than 0.1 g of saliva over five minutes (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.13 to 1.86; P = 0.004, one study, 175 participants).However, there was insufficient evidence to show a difference when looking at stimulated salivary flow rates. There was insufficient (very low quality) evidence to show that amifostine compromised the effects of cancer treatment when looking at survival measures. There was some very low quality evidence of a small benefit for amifostine in terms of quality of life (ten-point scale) at 12 months after radiotherapy (MD 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.20; P = 0.006, one study, 180 participants), but insufficient evidence at the end of and up to three-month post radiotherapy. A further study showed no evidence of a difference at 6, 12, 18 and 24-month post radiotherapy.There was low quality evidence that amifostine is associated with increases in: vomiting (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.87 to 8.38; P < 0.00001, five studies, 601 participants); hypotension (RR 9.20, 95% CI 2.84 to 29.83; P = 0.0002, three studies, 376 participants); nausea (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.74; P < 0.00001, four studies, 556 participants); and allergic response (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.40 to 40.39; P = 0.02, three studies, 524 participants).The authors founded insufficient evidence (that was of very low quality) to determine whether or not pilocarpine performed better or worse than a placebo or no treatment control for the outcomes: xerostomia, salivary flow rate, survival and quality of life. There was some low quality evidence that pilocarpine was associated with an increase in sweating (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.22; P = 0.004, five studies, 389 participants).The authors found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not palifermin performed better or worse than placebo for: xerostomia (low quality); survival (moderate quality); and any adverse effects. There was also insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the following interventions: biperiden plus pilocarpine, Chinese medicines, bethanechol, artificial saliva, selenium, antiseptic mouthrinse, antimicrobial lozenge, polaprezinc, azulene rinse and Venalot Depot (coumarin plus troxerutin).ConclusionsThere is some low quality evidence to suggest that amifostine prevents the feeling of dry mouth in people receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck (with or without chemotherapy) in the short- (end of radiotherapy) to medium-term (three-month post radiotherapy). However, it is less clear whether or not this effect is sustained to 12-month post radiotherapy. The benefits of amifostine should be weighed against its high cost and side effects. There was insufficient evidence to show that any other intervention is beneficial.

Asepsis is described as a state free from microorganisms. In medicine, an aseptic environment is necessary and expected to avoid the spread of infection through contact between persons, sprays and splashes, inhalation, and sharps. Most dental procedures are performed in a "clean "environment with the common use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as disposable gloves, masks and protective eyewear with disinfection of surfaces and sterilization of instruments. For surgical procedure such as the insertion of endosseous implants, the recommendations are not clear. The use of antimicrobials and antibiotics before and after the procedure remains a controversial issue The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate the current evidence as to what is generally expected and widely accepted in the use of aseptic techniques for the surgical placement of endosseous implants, and the impact on implant survival and overall success.

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/).