PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ian Needleman

Publications and source records attributed to Ian Needleman.

18 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Evaluation of tobacco use cessation (TUC) counselling in the dental office.

Tobacco use cessation (TUC) in dentistry is critical to reducing the effect of a major risk factor for both oral and systematic diseases. The effect of TUC interventions has been widely reported. The data show that the success of TUC without professional support is negligible but that behavioural and pharmacological interventions are effective. Furthermore, the greater the intensity of support, the greater the quit rate and success rates are similar comparing different health care professionals including dental professionals. Although few studies have been performed in dental practice, it is clear that TUC should be embedded in routine oral health care. In addition to evaluating the effect of TUC, several studies have investigated barriers to implementing TUC in dental settings. A large number of barriers have been reported. These studies highlight the importance of further training for dental professionals but also identify the need for major cultural and policy changes to facilitate the provision of TUC. Research on barriers to TUC in dental care could be facilitated by employing qualitative or mixed methods designs and studies that evaluate the impact of changing such barriers on TUC provision. Such an approach will help to close the gap between research findings and implementation. Regarding the measurement of outcomes from TUC, no gold standards exist currently. Therefore both self-reported and biochemical measures of tobacco use should be reported in evaluation studies. It is also clear that feedback from biochemical testing of tobacco use can increase success rates in tobacco use cessation.

Counseling↗
PubMed2005

A systematic review of professional mechanical plaque removal for prevention of periodontal diseases.

AIM: To investigate the effect of professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) on the prevention of periodontal diseases. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies from 1950 to October 2004. Screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Critical appraisal of studies was based on objective criteria and evidence tables were constructed. RESULTS: From 2179 titles and abstracts, 132 full-text articles were screened and 32 studies were relevant. Evidence exists that PMPR in adults, particularly in combination with oral hygiene instruction (OHI), may be more effective than no treatment judged by surrogate measures. The evidence for a benefit of PMPR+OHI over OHI alone is less clear. The optimum frequency of PMPR has not been investigated although more frequent PMPR is associated with improved markers of health. The strength of evidence for these results ranges from weak to moderate due to risk of bias, inconsistent results, lack of appropriate statistics and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be little value in providing PMPR without OHI. In fact, repeated OHI might have a similar effect as PMPR. Some forms of PMPR might achieve greater patient satisfaction. There is little difference in beneficial or adverse effects of different methods of PMPR.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Comparison of implant survival following sinus floor augmentation procedures with implants placed in pristine posterior maxillary bone: a systematic review.

Sinus augmentation is a commonly used procedure in implant dentistry. However, a general consensus on implant survival after this procedure is still lacking. The objective of this study was to systematically review implant survival following sinus augmentation procedures compared with conventional implant placement in the posterior maxilla. Following the production of a detailed protocol, screening and quality assessments of clinical trials were conducted in duplicate and independently. The search yielded 579 abstracts and 93 were selected for full-text screening. Six publications (five studies) fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and were relevant to the study. Heterogeneity of the selected papers prevented meta-analysis. Implant survival ranged from 73% to 100% for non-augmented sinuses and from 36% to 100% for augmented sinuses in patient-based data. From implant-based data, survival varied between 75% and 100% for both non-augmented and augmented areas. Implant survival appears to show greater variability in grafted sinuses than in the posterior maxilla. However, prospective studies with larger patient numbers and control of confounding factors are urgently needed to provide definitive data on this important procedure.

Bone Transplantation↗
PubMed2004

Impact of oral health on the life quality of periodontal patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of oral health on the life quality of a periodontal patient group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and five patients attending a private periodontal clinic completed a questionnaire incorporating the 16-item UK oral health-related quality-of-life measure (OHQoL-UK), a check list of questions about their periodontal health over the past year and a comprehensive periodontal examination. RESULTS: The effect of oral health on quality of life was considerable, with many individuals experiencing negative impacts across a broad range of physical, social and psychological aspects of life quality. OHQoL-UK(Copyright ) scores was associated with patient's self-reported periodontal health in the past year: experiences of "swollen gums" (p<0.01), "sore gums" (p<0.01), "receding gums" (p<0.01), "loose teeth" (p<0.01), "drifting teeth" (p<0.01), "bad breath" (p<0.01) and "toothache" (p<0.01). In addition, OHQoL-UK scores were correlated with the number of teeth with pocket depths of 5 mm or more (r(s)-0.42, p<0.01). New patients had poorer oral health-related quality of life compared with the treated maintenance group (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal status impacts on life quality. This has implications in understanding the consequences of periodontal health and in the use of patient-centred outcomes in periodontal research.

Affect↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review of the prevalence of root sensitivity following periodontal therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on the prevalence of root sensitivity following periodontal therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal clinical studies were searched for in electronic databases, hand searched journals and through contact with authors directly. The screening and data extraction were conducted by several reviewers independently. The main outcome measure was prevalence of root sensitivity following periodontal therapy. RESULTS: The prevalence of root sensitivity was 9-23% before and 54-55% after periodontal therapy. An increase in the intensity of root sensitivity occurred 1-3 weeks following therapy, after which it decreased. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that there are insufficient randomized controlled trials to adequately address the stipulated question. However, based on the scarce evidence from only two studies, root sensitivity occurs in approximately half of the patients following subgingival scaling and root planing. The intensity of root sensitivity increases for a few weeks after therapy, after which it decreases. In clinical practice, it may be recommended that patients should be made aware of the potential for root sensitivity prior to treatment. In research, it may be recommended to conduct randomized controlled and prospective studies with both short and long follow-up periods. Furthermore, to investigate the effects and the relationship of root instrumentation with the aetiology of root sensitivity, the efficacy of preventive and therapeutic regimes for root sensitivity, and the incidence and severity of root sensitivity by subjective patient-reporting, and the response to different modes of stimuli. Protocols should follow the criteria used in dentine hypersensitivity studies.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Periodontal plastic surgery for treatment of localized gingival recessions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery (PPS) in the treatment of recession defects has not yet been systematically evaluated. The objective of this review was to systematically review the efficacy of PPS in achieving root coverage in the treatment of localized gingival recession. The following surgical procedures have been considered in this review: guided tissue regeneration (GTR), free gingival graft (FGG), connective tissue graft (CTG), and coronally advanced flap (CAF). METHODS: Randomized and controlled trials, as well as case series of at least 6 months' follow-up, were searched. Data sources included electronic databases and hand-searched journals. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: Regarding recession reduction, a limited but statistically significant greater benefit was found for CTG compared with GTR (weighted mean difference: 0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.62-0.23). No differences were found comparing either GTR with CAF or resorbable versus non-resorbable GTR barriers. Gain in attachment was also similar for each of the three comparisons. Analysis of single arms of trials and case series demonstrated that PPS can have a marked improvement on clinical parameters but heterogeneity was often high and only partly explained by initial defect depth. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PPS was effective in reducing gingival recessions with a concomitant improvement in attachment levels. Even though no single treatment can be considered superior to all the others, CTG was statistically significantly more effective than GTR in recession reduction. Further research is needed to identify the factors most associated with successful outcomes.

Connective Tissue↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review of guided tissue regeneration for periodontal furcation defects. What is the effect of guided tissue regeneration compared with surgical debridement in the treatment of furcation defects?

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for furcation defects. BACKGROUND: The evidence for the effectiveness of GTR in furcation defects has not yet been systematically appraised. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials with at least 6 months' follow-up comparing GTR with surgical debridement (open flap debridement, OFD). Data sources included electronic databases, hand-searched journals and contact with experts. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple reviewers. The primary outcome measure was reduction in open horizontal furcation depth, secondary outcomes were frequency of furcation closure, gain in horizontal and vertical probing attachment and reduction of vertical probing depth. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, reduction in horizontal furcation depth assessed during re-entry, the weighted mean difference between GTR and control was 1.51 mm (95% CI [0.39-2.62], chi-square for heterogeneity 67.6 (df = 3), P < 0.001) in mandibular class II furcations, 1.05 mm (95% CI [0.46-1.64, chi-square for heterogeneity 34.9 (df = 3), P < 0.001) in maxillary class II furcations, and 0.87 mm (95% CI [-0.08-1.82], chi-square for heterogeneity 0.1 (df = 4), P = 0.991) in studies that had combined mandibular and maxillary class II furcations. For the secondary outcomes, GTR treatment led to significantly better results than open flap debridement. No meta-analysis could be performed for frequency of furcation closure because of sparse data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GTR was consistently more effective than OFD in reducing open horizontal furcation depths, horizontal and vertical attachment levels and pocket depths for mandibular or maxillary class II furcation defects. However, these improvements were modest, variable and there was only a limited number of studies available to appraise the effects, thus limiting general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Future studies should aim to identify factors associated with achieving consistent and more pronounced benefits over open flap debridement.

Furcation Defects↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review of graft materials and biological agents for periodontal intraosseous defects.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the adjunctive effect of grafting biomaterials/biological agents with open flap debridement (OFD) in the treatment of deep intraosseous defects. BACKGROUND: No systematic review of treatment outcomes in patients who received graft biomaterials or biological agents have been published. METHODS: A rigorous systematic review of randomized controlled trials of at least 6-month duration was conducted comparing grafting biomaterials/biological agents (alone or in combination) + OFD (test group) to OFD alone or in combination with a placebo (control group). RESULTS: The difference in CAL change between test and control groups varied from -1.45 mm to 1.40 mm with respect to different biomaterials/biological agents. Meta-analysis showed that CAL change significantly improved after treatment for coralline calcium carbonate (weighted mean difference 0.90 mm; 95% CI: 0.53-1.27), bioactive glass (weighted mean difference 1.04 mm; 95% CI: 0.31-1.76), hydroxyapatite (weighted mean difference 1.40 mm, 95% CI 0.64-2.16), and enamel matrix proteins (weighted mean difference 1.33 mm, 95% CI 0.78-1.88). However, heterogeneity in results between studies was highly statistically significant for most of biomaterials/biologicals and could not be fully explained. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of specific biomaterials/biologicals was more effective than OFD in improving attachment levels in intraosseous defects. Difference in CAL gain varied greatly with respect to different biomaterial/biological agent. Due to a significant heterogeneity in results between studies in most treatment groups, general conclusions about the expected clinical benefit of graft biomaterials/biologicals need to be interpreted with caution. Further research should focus on understanding this variability.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review on the effect of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in periodontitis patients.

BACKGROUND: Scaling and root planing (SRP) are the bases of non-surgical therapy in the treatment of periodontitis. However, results from this therapy are often unpredictable and dependable from many different factors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the adjunctive use of systemic antimicrobials with scaling and root planing (SRP) vs. SRP alone in the treatment of chronic (CP) or aggressive periodontitis (AgP). SEARCH STRATEGY: Use of computerized databases, namely MEDLINE, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialty Trials Register and EMBASE; reference lists from relevant articles were hand-searched; and a hand-search of selected journals until April 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected if they were designed as controlled clinical trials in which systemically healthy patients with either AgP or CP were treated with SRP plus systemic antimicrobials in comparison with SRP alone or with placebo, for a minimum of 6 months. Main outcome measures were clinical attachment level (CAL) change and probing pocket depth (PPD) change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted independently information regarding quality and study characteristics, in duplicate. Kappa scores determined their agreement. Main results were collected and grouped by drug, disease and PPD category. For the quantitative data synthesis, the data was pooled (when mean differences and standard errors were available), and either a Fixed Effects or Random Effects meta-analysis was used for the analysis. RESULTS: After an initial selection, 158 papers were identified by the manual and electronic searches; 25 papers were eligible for inclusion. Their quality assessment showed that randomization and allocation concealment methods were seldom reported and blindness was usually not defined clearly. In general, selected studies showed high variability and lack of relevant information for an adequate assessment. Overall, SRP plus systemic antimicrobial groups demonstrated better results in CAL and PPD change than SRP alone or with placebo groups. Only limited meta-analyses could be performed, due to the difficulties in pooling the studies and the lack of appropriate data. This analysis showed a statistically significant additional benefit for spiramycin (PPD change) and amoxicillin/metronidazole (CAL change) in deep pockets. CONCLUSION: Systemic antimicrobials in conjunction with SRP, can offer an additional benefit over SRP alone in the treatment of periodontitis, in terms of CAL and PPD change, and reduced risk of additional CAL loss. However, differences in study methodology and lack of data precluded an adequate and complete pooling of data for a more comprehensive analyses. It was difficult to establish definitive conclusions, although patients with deep pockets, progressive or 'active' disease, or specific microbiological profile, can benefit more from this adjunctive therapy.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review of guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infrabony defects.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for infrabony defects. BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of GTR has not yet been systematically appraised. METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months' follow-up comparing GTR with open flap debridement (OFD). Data sources included electronic databases, hand-searched journals and contact with experts. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple reviewers. The primary outcome measure was gain in clinical attachment. RESULTS: For attachment level change, the weighted mean difference between GTR alone and open flap debridement was 1.11 mm (95% CI: 0.63-1.59), chi-square for heterogeneity 31.4 (9 df ), P < 0.001) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI: 0.89-1.61, chi-square for heterogeneity 0.01 (1 df), P = 0.91). The number of sites needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was 8 (95% CI: 4-33). Heterogeneity between studies was highly statistically significant for all principal comparisons and could not be explained satisfactorily by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GTR was more effective than OFD in improving attachment levels. However, there was marked variability between studies and general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR are limited by this heterogeneity. Future studies should aim to identify factors associated with achieving consistent benefits over open flap debridement. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗