Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to H V Worthington.
Prevention for patients requiring rehabilitation with oral implants is about preventing implant failure and biomechanical complications. This paper describes preventative strategies for the planning stage for implant treatment and the later maintenance period and indicates the level of scientific evidence supporting these strategies.
BACKGROUND: Specific oral bacteria, generically known as "dental plaque" are the primary cause of gingivitis (gum disease) and caries. The removal of dental plaque is thought to play a key role in the maintenance of oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22/8/02); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 5 2002); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 3 July 2002) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2002). Manufacturers of powered toothbrushes were contacted for additional published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants-general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention- supervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least four weeks; primary outcomes-the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six reviewers independently extracted information in duplicate. Indices for plaque and gingivitis were expressed as standardised values for each study. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with the appropriate 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for the items assessed for quality and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials, involving 2,547 participants, provided data for the meta-analysis. Brushes that worked with a rotation oscillation action removed more plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short and long term. For plaque at one to three months the SMD was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.44 (95% CI: -0.72, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over three months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02,-0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. The heterogeneity found in these meta-analyses for short term trials was caused by one trial that had exceptionally low standard deviations. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Those side effects that were reported on in the trials were localised and temporary. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action achieve a modest reduction in plaque and gingivitis compared to manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.
BACKGROUND: Bonding of orthodontic brackets to teeth is important to enable effective and efficient treatment with fixed appliances. The problem is bracket failure during treatment which increases operator chairside time and lengthens treatment time. A prolonged treatment is likely to increase the oral health risks of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances one of which is irreversible enamel decalcification. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different orthodontic adhesives for bonding. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Date of most recent searches: August 2002 (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing two different adhesive groups. Participants were patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The interventions were adhesives that bonded stainless steel brackets to all teeth except the molars. The primary outcome was debond or bracket failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were recorded on decalcification as a secondary outcome, if present. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were extracted in duplicate by pairs of reviewers (Nicky Mandall (NM) and Rye Mattick (CRM); Declan Millett (DTM) and Joy Hickman (JH2)). Since the data were not presented in a form that was amenable to meta-analysis, the results of the review are presented in narrative form only. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A chemical cured composite was compared with a light cure composite (one trial), a conventional glass ionomer cement (one trial) and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (one trial). The quality of the trial reports was generally poor. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this review, however, suggestions are made for methods of improving future research involving orthodontic adhesives.
BACKGROUND: Many variations in the surgical technique for the placement of dental implants have been developed since the introduction of implant surgery into clinical practice. These include variations in the timing of implant placement in relation to the tooth removal, and variations in the way the recipient bone site is prepared, amongst others. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for placing dental implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and personal references were searched. 55 implant companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of implant surgical techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and data and quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (six publications) were suitable for inclusion in this review of the nine RCTs (11 publications) identified. Two different aspects of implant surgical technique were reported in these RCTs. These were, two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for any of these alternative techniques with respect to implant failures, marginal bone levels, morbidity or patient satisfaction. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review included studies evaluating the surgical techniques of two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. Based on the available results of RCTs, there is no strong evidence supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques for either of these two aspects of surgical technique. These conclusions are based on a few RCTs for each aspect of surgical technique and some with relatively short follow-up periods and few patients.
BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to adequately stabilise. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for use in bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. Implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality assessment was carried out and authors were contacted for any missing information. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (n = 95) were suitable for inclusion in this review, assessing three different aspects of bone augmentation techniques: onlay grafting with and without a barrier membrane, grafting with a resorbable and non-resorbable membrane, and membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR). Trials reported on augmentation procedures up to abutment connection only. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for the alternative techniques for onlay grafting with respect to the degree of bone graft resorption and wound dehiscence. One trial showed statistically significantly more infections in the non-resorbable group compared to the resorbable group, relative risk 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00 to 0.74). One study of GBR with a resorbable versus non-resorbable membrane indicated no statistically significant difference in early implant failure, reduction in bone defect or wound dehiscence. The other GBR study compared a non-resorbable membrane with no membrane and reported no statistically significant difference in wound infection or dehiscence but a significant increase in per cent bone gain for the test group compared to control, mean difference = 70 (95% CI: 36 to 104, p = 0.002). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from available RCTs supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques examined. There was weak evidence that a non-resorbable membrane was better than no membrane for permitting bone growth about dental implants, and that a resorbable membrane over a bone graft may allow healing with fewer infections than a non-resorbable membrane.
BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. There is evidence to show that amelogenins are involved not only in enamel formation, but also in the formation of the periodontal attachment during tooth formation. OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of EMD in comparison with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: January 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least one year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs and postoperative infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No difference in tooth loss was observed. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that Emdogain treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.3 mm, 95%CI: 0.8 to 1.8) and PPD reduction (1 mm, 95%CI: 0.5 to 1.4) when compared to flap surgery. Comparing Emdogain with GTR (six trials), GTR showed a statistically significant reduction of PPD (0.6 mm) and increase of REC (0.5 mm). No difference in postoperative infections was observed. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Emdogain is able to significantly improve PAL levels (1.3mm) and PPD reduction (1mm) when compared to flap surgery, however these results may not have a great clinical impact, since it has not been shown that more periodontally compromised teeth could be saved. There was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and Emdogain.
BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated oral implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediate and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times one year after loading. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials and 55 oral implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished RCTs. The last electronic search was conducted on 8 May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow-up of one year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants loaded at different times. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomization and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Only three RCTs were identified and two trials including 68 patients in total were suitable for inclusion in this review. Implants have been either immediately loaded after insertion (two to three days), early loaded (six weeks) or conventionally loaded (three to eight months) in edentulous mandibles of adequate bone quality and shape. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone loss on intra-oral radiographs. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: While it is possible to successfully load oral implants immediately after their placement in mandibles of adequate bone density and height of carefully selected patients, it is yet unknown how predictable this approach is. More well designed RCTs are needed to understand how predictable immediate and early loading are. Such trials should be simply designed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). It is suggested that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of immediately loaded implants rather than early loaded ones.
BACKGROUND: Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. However, the possibility of placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone grafting procedures have been developed to solve this problem. The missing bone can be taken from a donor site, transplanted where needed and then implants are placed. Major bone grafting operations have to be undertaken under general anaesthesia and patients have to be hospitalized for a few days. Some degree of morbidity related to the donor site must be expected and two to three surgical interventions are needed before the implants can be functionally used. Often patients have to wait more than 1 year before a denture can be fixed to the implants and the total cost of the treatment is high. However, the major problem is that about 25% of the implants placed in grafted bone fail. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as an alternative to bone grafting. Zygomatic implants are inserted into the body of the zygomatic bone. Their main advantages are that bone grafting may not be needed and patients may be fitted with a fixed denture much sooner. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between zygomatic implants without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for severely resorbed maxillae. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: February 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on patients with severely resorbed maxillae who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants without bone grafts versus conventional dental implants with bone grafts or other procedures for bone augmentation with a follow up of at least 1 year. Outcome measures considered were: prosthesis and implant failures, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for RCTs in this area, since zygomatic implants, if found to be at least as effective as other augmentation procedures, may involve major advantages for both patients and society.
BACKGROUND: Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimise infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. It would be useful to know whether prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing failures of dental implants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of the administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotics regimens and no antibiotics/placebo to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs were identified. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not appropriate scientific evidence to recommend or discourage the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics to prevent complications and failures of dental implants. Even though the present review did not assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at risk for endocarditis, it seems sensible to recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at high and moderate risk for endocarditis, with immunodeficiencies, metabolic diseases, irradiated in the head and neck area and when an extensive or prolonged surgery is anticipated.
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions in dentistry. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of interventions for oral, dental and craniofacial disorders and diseases. Sixty-five reviews were identified and assessed independently by two reviewers. The area most frequently evaluated within the reviews was pain relief/prevention (20/65, 31%) followed by caries and oral medicine. The quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews highlighted key areas where improvements could be made. One major weakness of the reviews was that the search strategies employed were not always adequate. Only 12 reviews (19%) demonstrated an attempt to identify all relevant studies. Other areas of weakness include the screening and quality assessment of primary studies, the pooling of data and examination of heterogeneity, and the interpretation of findings. This investigation shows that the quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that the reviews address clinically relevant, focused questions and follow a 'transparent', well-designed protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the health care seeking behaviour associated with orofacial pain (OFP) and determine factors associated with such behaviour. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based study using postal questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-64 years from a general medical practice in south-east Cheshire, UK (participation rate 74%). RESULTS: Of the 2,504 respondents to the questionnaire 646 reported OFP, of whom 555 (86%) indicated whether or not they sought professional help. A total of 255 (46%) responded that they had sought advice. The majority had sought advice from their medical practitioner (57%) or dentist (51%), and 64% had taken medication because of OFP. The likelihood of seeking treatment increased linearly with age (p < 0.001) while gender, education and psychological distress did not show a significant association with seeking treatment. Persons who were regular dental attenders had an increased likelihood of seeking treatment for OFP (RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1,1.8). Perception of illness had moderate association with healthcare seeking (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7,0.96). There was a significant trend of increasing RR with increasing total number of pain symptoms (p < 0.001), frequency of pain, duration of pain episodes, pain intensity and disability associated with pain. Participants who reported pain duration of more than three months had almost double the likelihood (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4,2.3) of seeking treatment. Decrease in self-reported control over pain and ability to decrease pain were both associated with an increased likelihood of seeking professional care (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The strongest predictors of health care seeking behaviour were different characteristics of pain.
The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of ceramic inlays, assess the quality of published clinical studies, and determine the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays compared to other forms of posterior restorations. Prospective clinical trials of ceramic inlays published from 1990 to 2001 were retrieved by electronic and hand searching. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by two calibrated reviewers using a standardised checklist. The clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays was evaluated in terms of failure rate, postoperative pain, and aesthetics. The results were compared to those of other forms of posterior restorations by means of an odds ratio. Among 46 articles selected for quality assessment, only five (10.6%) reported randomised controlled trials and 15 (32.6%) presented controlled clinical trials. The remaining 26 papers (56.5%) were longitudinal clinical trials lacking control groups. Only three papers fulfilled the requirement for statistical analysis to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays. The results indicate no significant differences in longevity or postoperative sensitivity between ceramic and other posterior restorations over assessment periods of up to 1 year. It is concluded that no strong evidence is available to confirm the clinical effectiveness of ceramic inlays in comparison to other posterior restorations. Greater attention is required to the design and reporting of studies to improve the quality of clinical trials of ceramic inlays.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the radiological diagnostic yield on screening panoramic radiographs taken of new adult patients and to identify selection criteria for panoramic radiography of new adult patients. DESIGN: Survey of 1,817 consecutive panoramic radiographs taken as 'routine' on new patients with statistical analysis of clinical and radiological findings. SETTING: All radiographs were obtained from 41 general dental practitioners (GDPs). The GDPs provided the clinical information about the patient obtained by history and examination. Collection of material occurred in 1998/1999. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two dental radiologists recorded the radiological findings on each of 1,817 panoramic radiographs by consensus. Those findings that would have been identified from bilateral posterior bitewing radiographs of each patient were then excluded to give modified figures for radiological findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indices of diagnostic yield were devised and calculated for each radiograph from the data on radiological findings. Total diagnostic yield (DY) and modified diagnostic yield (MDY), after exclusion of findings identifiable on bitewing radiographs, were both calculated. Clinical indicators of a high MDY were identified using stepwise multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: MDY was 0 for 17% of the radiographs (all patients) and 23% of the radiographs when the asymptomatic group were considered. The clinical variables for which the significance was high (p < 0.001) were: increasing number of teeth with clinical suspicion of periapical pathology, presence of partially erupted teeth, increasing number of clinically evident carious lesions, partially dentate status and presence of crowns. CONCLUSION: Taking posterior bitewing radiographs of new adult patients would reduce the diagnostic yield identified solely by panoramic radiography. Using clinical factors derived from the history and examination as radiographic selection criteria modestly improves the odds of achieving a high diagnostic yield from panoramic radiography.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral candidiasis, remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and or radiotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches May 2001: (CCTR 2001, issue 3) SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using random effects models where significant heterogeneity was detected (P<0.1). MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials involving 418 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Only two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for eradicating oral candidiasis. A drug absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, ketoconazole, was more beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (RR=0.35 95%CI 0.20 to 0.61) and clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50mg was more effective than a lower 10mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (RR=0.47 95%CI 0.25 to 0.89). Another trial demonstrated no difference between a 10mg dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, and placebo. No differences were found when comparing different absorbed drugs; and comparing absorbed drugs with drugs which are not absorbed. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is weak and unreliable evidence that the absorbed drug, ketoconazole, may eradicate oral candidiasis and that a higher dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, may give greater benefit than a lower 10mg dose, however, researchers may wish to prevent rather than treat oral candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, CCTR, MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched. Authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: May 2001 (CCTR 2001, issue 3) SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Outcomes were oral mucositis, oral pain, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and relative risk values calculated using fixed effects models as no significant heterogeneity was detected (P>0.1). MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 876 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR=0.63 95%CI 0.42 to 0.96) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR=0.59 95%CI 0.42 to 0.84; vitamin E RR=0.38 95%CI 0.14 to 0.97). The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and "magic" (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA, however more opiate was used with PKCA. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash and vitamin E improves or eradicates mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, vitamin E and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.
BACKGROUND: To maintain healthy tissues around oral implants it is important to institute an effective preventive regimen (supportive therapy) and when a pathologic condition of the tissue around implants is diagnosed, an intervention should be initiated as soon as possible. Different maintenance regimens and treatment strategies for failing implants have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference between different interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Hand searching included several dental journals. In addition, authors of all identified trials, fifty-five oral implant manufacturers and two extensive personal libraries (ME and AJ) were consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (ME & HW). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. Five of these trials, which reported results from a total of 127 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is only a little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining health around peri-implant tissues. There was no evidence that the use of powered or sonic toothbrushes was superior to manual toothbrushing. There is a weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as adjunct to routine oral hygiene is effective in reducing plaque formation and marginal bleeding around implants. There was no evidence that phosphoric etching gel offered any clinical advantage over mechanical debridement. These findings are based on RCTs having short follow-up periods and few subjects. There is not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long-term maintenance. For the treatment of failing implants (peri-implantitis) there is not any reliable evidence for preferring one therapeutic regimen over another. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials investigating which is the most effective approach for the treatment of peri-implantitis and for trials with longer follow-up for maintenance. Such trials should be reported according the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).
BACKGROUND: Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth and associated tissues. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those that have also undergone surgery for cancer may benefit particularly from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to compare success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and personal references were searched. We also wrote to implant manufacturers and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No randomised trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No data were available. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians ought to make patients aware of the lack of reliable clinical evidence for or against the clinical effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. There is a definite need for RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multi-centred.
BACKGROUND: Preprosthetic surgery refers to the surgical procedures that can modify the oral anatomy to facilitate the retention of conventional dentures. Osseointegrated implants offer an alternative treatment to improve denture retention. A denture may be connected by special attachments to implants placed into the jaw. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success (patient satisfaction and morbidity) and cost effectiveness between conventional prostheses that require preprosthetic surgery (PPS) and implant retained prostheses (IRO) that do not require preprosthetic surgery, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group (OHG) Specialised Register (May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE and EMBASE (May 2002) were searched. In addition, 55 implant companies were contacted and the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the hand searched journals and personal references were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing preprosthetic surgery and implant retained dentures for improving denture retention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). The Cochrane OHG's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: One study, containing 60 participants, reported in four articles was identified for inclusion in this review. No studies were excluded. There was a statistically significant difference between mean patient satisfaction scores with patients in the IRO group being more satisfied in general at both year one (WMD = -0.66(95% CI; -1.28 to -0.04)) and five years (WMD = -0.90(95%CI; -1.74 to -0.06). Altered sensation of the lower lip and chin was measured at one year and five years. There was no statistically significant difference at either time point and no patients had altered sensation at five years. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence from the results of one randomised controlled trial including 60 subjects that patients are generally less satisfied with preprosthetic surgery and a conventional denture than with an implant retained denture. There is a need for more well designed trials comparing the success and cost-effectiveness of preprosthetic surgery and implant supported dentures. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). However, since preprosthetic surgery is considered to be an obsolete treatment nowadays, almost completely replaced by dental implants, it may be that new RCTs on this topic will not be designed.