METHODS: We included peer-reviewed primary research studies on the effect of music on perinatal anxiety, published in English, between January 2010 and August 2022. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ProQuest were searched using specific keywords, resulting in 225 studies for screening by title, abstract, and full text. Two independent reviewers screened them and assessed the quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (RoB2) and non-randomized controlled trial studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures, the review's findings were summarized qualitatively.
RESULTS: Nine studies with 1646 pregnant women and one with 260 pregnant women and their neonates were included. Results of all studies suggest that listening to classical music reduces the anxiety levels among pregnant women, as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Only one study reported the beneficial effect of antenatal exposure to music on improving newborn behaviors like orientation (ES 1.13, 95% CI: 0.82-1.44, P < 0.0001) and habituation (ES 1.05, 95% CI: 0.53-1.57, P = 0.0001). The risk of bias was unclear in most of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Listening to classical music during the perinatal period may be an effective non-pharmacological intervention for reducing anxiety and pain and improving sleep quality and newborn behaviors. There is a need to conduct further interventional studies on the types of music provided and their effects on perinatal health outcomes.
REGISTRATION OF THE PROTOCOL: The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256806.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science using a combination of relevant keywords: digital workflow, digital designing, computer-assisted design-computer aided manufacturing, 3D printing, maxillectomy, and mandibulectomy. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.
RESULTS: From a total of 542 references, 33 articles were selected, including 25 on maxillary prostheses and 8 on mandibular prostheses. The use of digital workflows was limited to one or two steps of the fabrication of the prostheses, and only four studies described a complete digital workflow. The most preferred method for data acquisition was intraoral scanning with or without a cone beam computed tomography combination.
CONCLUSION: Currently, the fabrication process of maxillofacial prostheses requires combining digital and conventional methods. Simplifying the data acquisition methods and providing user-friendly and affordable software may encourage clinicians to use the digital workflow more frequently for patients requiring maxillofacial prostheses.