PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of fiber and metal posts used for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until November 2022. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022384340). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed the comparative efficacy of fiber posts and metal posts for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare all the varieties of fiber and metal posts. The types of posts were ranked according to their efficacy using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) system. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Fiber posts (RR=0.15 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.33]) significantly prevented tooth fracture as compared with no posts. Prefabricated carbon fiber posts (RR=0.06 [95% CI: 0, 0.54]) ranked highest followed by custom glass fiber posts (RR=0.15 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.52]) and prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.22 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.62]) in the outcome of tooth fracture. Metal posts (RR=0.24 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.46]) ranked higher than fiber posts (RR=0.39 [95% CI: 0.27, 0.56]) in the outcome of debonding. Custom gold alloy posts (RR=0.12 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.48]), prefabricated gold alloy posts (RR=0.04 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.87]), and prefabricated titanium posts (RR=0.21 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.45]) had higher rankings in the outcome of debonding or loss of retention of a post followed by custom glass fiber posts (RR=0.37 [95% CI: 0.21, 0.63]) and prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.38 [95%CI: 0.25, 0.58]). Prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.40 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.81]) had statistically significant differences in the outcome of secondary caries. The GRADE approach determined a moderate level of certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a fiber post when indicated results in reduced risk of tooth fracture as compared with no post. Prefabricated carbon fiber posts, prefabricated glass fiber posts, and custom glass fiber posts reveal a lower risk of tooth fracture. Overall, the use of prefabricated glass fiber posts had a lower risk of tooth fracture, debonding, and secondary caries. However, more trials with longer follow-up periods are recommended to enhance the certainty of evidence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42023451045). A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the comparative efficacy of different denture adhesive types and ranked using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) system. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: Seventeen articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Cream denture adhesives significantly increased bite force in both incisal region (RR = 7.63[95%CI: 3.34, 11.91]) (P
DATA/SOURCES: A search was conducted for meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the association between any risk factor and peri‑implantitis in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos, from inception until October 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42024512408).
STUDY SELECTION: From a total of 5002 publications, 51 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 12 articles that described 41 unique meta-analyses evaluating the association between risk factors and periimplantitis were selected. Among 41 associations, 24 associations were significant. None of the associations were graded as convincing evidence. Two associations, presence of periodontitis (OR = 3.84 [95 % CI 2.58,5.72]) and cigarette smoking (RR=2.07 [95 % CI 1.41,3.04]) were graded as highly suggestive. Eight associations, diabetes mellitus, hyperglycaemia, lack of prophylaxis, history of chronic periodontal disease, ongoing or history of periodontal disease, implants located in the anterior region of the jaw (maxillary and mandibular), osteoprotegerin (OPG) gene polymorphisms, and lack of keratinized mucosal width were graded as suggestive evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Periodontitis and cigarette smoking are highly suggestive risk factors for peri‑implantitis. The remaining risk factors which are suggestive require more high-quality studies to be performed to upgrade the level of evidence.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The highly suggestive and suggestive risk factors for peri‑implantitis summarized in this umbrella review should be rigorously assessed, monitored and managed by clinicians to reduce the risk peri‑implantitis, as well as to form part of the preoperative consent process.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to analyze the current evidence on nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis and synthesize clinical guidelines based on high quality evidence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451056). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The interventions were ranked according to their efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) system. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 45 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The GRADE approach determined a moderate to high level of certainty of evidence. Among the nonsurgical interventions, mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth at 3 months and beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, and clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive topical antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics and photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months. Among surgical interventions, open flap debridement with implant surface decontamination and open flap debridement with decontamination and adjunctive photodynamic therapy were significant in improving probing depth at 3 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics or photodynamic therapy results in improved clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Case records of patients who underwent third molar extractions at the Prince Philip Dental Hospital in Hong Kong between 3 July 2012 and 22 June 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Data extraction was performed for indications, clinical and radiographic findings, antibiotic treatment, postoperative complications, and treatment for postoperative infection. The odds ratio (OR) for postoperative infection was estimated.
RESULTS: In total, 1615 extracted over 5 years from 992 patient records were included in the final analysis. Antibiotics were prescribed postoperatively for 44% of the extractions. The overall infection rate was 2.05%. There was no significant difference in infection rates between the groups which underwent extractions with or without antibiotics (OR = .68; P = .289). We found a significantly higher risk for infections with increasing age (P = .002).
CONCLUSION: Infection rates after third molar extraction is minimal in the current setting, with no significant benefit from postoperative antibiotic prescription.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of three databases including Medline, Embase and Central was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that used oral cryotherapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. The primary outcome was the incidence of oral mucositis for trials employing oral cryotherapy as the intervention for the prevention of oral mucositis. The meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model and random errors of the meta-analyses were detected by trial sequential analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs with 1577 participants were included in the present meta-analysis. Patients treated with oral cryotherapy were associated with a significantly lower risk of developing oral mucositis of any grade (risk ratio (RR), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.56-0.81, p < 0.05)). Findings from the subgroup analyses showed that oral cryotherapy significantly reduced the risk of oral mucositis in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (RR 0.69, CI: 0.54-0.89, p < 0.05) as well as chemotherapy (RR 0.66, CI: 0.58-0.75, p < 0.05). Findings from the trial sequential analysis suggested that the evidence on oral cryotherapy as a preventive intervention for oral mucositis in patients with solid malignancies receiving conventional chemotherapy was conclusive.
CONCLUSION: Oral cryotherapy is effective in preventing oral mucositis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for the management of solid malignancies. The use of oral cryotherapy in preventing oral mucositis in bone marrow transplantation settings showed promising efficacy, but the evidence is not conclusive and requires more high-quality randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of interventions used for the treatment of DS.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until February 2022 (PROSPERO Reg no: CRD42021271366). Network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed the comparative efficacy of any form of intervention for the treatment of DS in denture wearers. Agents were ranked according to their effectiveness in the treatment of DS based on outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 25 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Topical antifungal agents (risk ratio [RR]=4.37[95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15,8.90), topical antimicrobial agents used along with systemic antifungal agents (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.79,10.33]), systemic antifungal agents (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.79,10.10]), photodynamic therapy (RR=4.25[95% CI: 1.75,8.98]), and topical plant products (RR=3.40[95% CI: 1.59,7.26]) were found to effectively improve DS. Microwave disinfection concurrently administered with topical antifungal agents (RR=7.38(95% CI: 2.75,19.81), microwave disinfection 7.38[95% CI: 2.75,19.81]), topical antifungal agents (RR=4.88[95% CI: 1.92,12.42]), topical plant products (RR=4.49[95% CI: 1.70,11.82]), systemic antifungal agents together with topical antimicrobial agents (RR=3.85[95% CI: 1.33,11.10]), topical antimicrobial agents (RR=3.39[95% CI: 1.17,9.81]), systemic antifungal agents (RR=3.37[95% CI: 1.21,9.34]), and photodynamic therapy or photochemotherapy (PDT) (RR=2.93[95% CI: 1.01,8.47]) were found to effectively resolve mycological DS. Topical antifungals ranked highest in the SUCRA ranking for clinical improvement, whereas microwave disinfection concurrently administered with topical antifungal agents ranked highest for mycological resolution. None of the agents demonstrated significant side effects except for topical antimicrobial agents which demonstrated altered taste and staining of oral structures.
CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that topical antifungals, microwave, and systemic antifungals are effective in the treatment of DS, but confidence in these findings is low because of the limited number of studies and a high risk of bias. Additional clinical trials are needed on photodynamic therapy, topical plant products, and topical antimicrobials.