Holckhuang3299

Source of funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectorsType of study/design Randomised controlled trial (RCT) with parallel design.Subjects This RCT was conducted at the Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Ten patients, six women and four men, with a mean age of 62 years and an age range of 49-77 years, requiring posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs) were included in this RCT. The abutment teeth were six molars and six premolars in the maxilla and five molars and three premolars in the mandible. The patients fulfilled the following inclusion criteria they all were >18 years, with a full mouth plaque score less then 25% and a full mouth bleeding score less then 25%. They all needed a posterior tooth-supported FPD, in which the third molar was not an abutment tooth. Only abutments with no extene was only found between conventional impression (μ = 82, 95%CI [69-94]) and Cerec (μ = 32, 95%CI [18-46]).Conclusion Within the limitations of this RCT, it can be concluded that complete arch conventional impression is objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and patients when compared to digital scanning. Digital scanning techniques, requiring powdering, are more difficult for the clinicians than powderless ones and conventional impression.Design Systematic review.Data sources PubMed and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors from inception to July 2018 using keywords and index words combined using Boolean terms. Articles were restricted to English and were not excluded based on study design. Conference proceedings, grey literature, letters and commentaries were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Demographic data (age, sex), study design, pulpal and periapical pre-treatment diagnosis, pre-operative radiographic findings, intra-operative disinfection protocol, intracanal coronal barrier, duration of follow-up, and clinical and/or radiographic and/or histological outcomes after completion of single-visit regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) on non-vital, immature permanent teeth. Quality of included case reports were assessed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials was done using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The quality of the animal study was assessed by the SYRCLE risk of bias assessment tool.Results A total of five case reports, one randomised controlled trial and one animal study were included in the final analysis. All case reports were rated as high quality while the randomised controlled trial was rated moderate-to-low risk of bias. Case reports and the animal study favoured single-visit REPs, while the results from the randomised trial reported only 50% success. Within this limited pool of studies, there were differences in aetiology, location, disinfection protocol (different concentrations of NaOCl and EDTA, saline, chlorhexidine), follow-up time intervals and subjective reporting of radiographic healing, making syntheses challenging.Conclusions Single-visit REPs may offer benefits of reduced treatment time and visits compared to conventional two-visit REPs.Data sources The Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2010 (LHID2010).Data extraction and synthesis This retrospective cohort study elicited data from the LHID2010 database with a sample of 98,800 patients from 2001 to 2012. To assess the correlation between the exposure (periodontal treatment versus individuals without periodontal disease) and the outcome (pneumonia), Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was adopted. Propensity score matching was conducted according to age, gender, monthly income, urbanisation and comorbidities to further adjust the comparison group (individuals without periodontal disease) for potential baseline predictor variables.Results Patients who received periodontal treatment had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of pneumonia compared to the individuals in the comparison group throughout the 12-year follow-up period (log-rank test, p less then 0.001). Further sign-mapping of the data regarding the type of periodontal treatment indicated that scaling (compared to no periodontal treatment) is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of pneumonia (adjusted HR 0.70; 95%CI 0.66-0.75). Additionally, intensive periodontal treatment (for example, flap surgery) could lower the pneumonia risk by about 66% compared to no periodontal treatment (adjusted HR 0.34; 95%CI 0.19-0.62).Conclusions Conducting periodontal treatment is associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia. When looked at from a healthcare delivery perspective, this nationwide study can present further evidence that providing patients with thorough oral and dental examinations, and following periodontal treatment if necessary, might reduce the incidence of subsequent pneumonia events.Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and SIGLE database.Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies.Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers screened papers independently and assessed the risk of bias. Data categorised based on the study design. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR)/relative risk (RR) and confidence interval (CI) for hypertension in individuals with periodontitis.Results Diagnoses of moderate-to-severe (OR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.10-1.35) and severe periodontitis (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.09-2.05) were associated with hypertension. Diagnosis of periodontitis increased odds of occurring hypertension (OR = 1.68; 95% CI 0.85-3.35). Patients with periodontitis exhibited higher mean systolic (weighted mean difference [WMD] of 4.49 mmHg; 95% CI 2.88-6.11) and diastolic blood pressures (2.03 mmHg; 95% CI 1.25-2.81). There was inconclusive evidence that periodontal therapy reduces blood pressure (3-12.5 mmHg of systolic and 0-10 mmHg of diastolic blood pressures).Conclusions Periodontitis could be associated with increased risk of hypertension. Further, the management of periodontitis could impact on the management of hypertension. However, there is still a need for more high-quality research.Data sources The authors searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov for published and unpublished clinical trials. Only randomised clinical trials, with either a parallel or crossover design, reporting the tooth sensitivity of participants undergoing in-office dental bleaching and comparing pain frequency and severity with oral premedication of a non-steroidal or other anti-inflammatory drug compared with a placebo were used in the review. Studies that evaluated the topical administration of drugs or desensitising agents were not reviewed.Study selection In total,5,050 randomised clinical studies were screened and 11 studies were included in the various meta-analyses. Nine studies examined the effect of pre-emptive analgesics on the risk of sensitivity and ten studies evaluated the effect of drugs on the severity of sensitivity; seven of these studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias.Data extraction and synthesis This systematic review and meta-as in all randomised controlled trials reviewed. Based on a visual inspection of the funnel plots of all outcomes, the authors concluded that there was no publication bias.Conclusions The data did not support the pre-emptive use of anti-inflammatory drugs in preventing or reducing the intensity of pain caused by in-office tooth bleaching.Design A cost-effectiveness analysis of caries management in primary molars using Hall technique (HT) versus conventional restoration (CR) from a pre-existing dataset from a randomised split-mouth trial, within primary care in Scotland, with a five-year follow-up.Case selection Computer-generated block randomisation was used to match asymptomatic primary molars of 3-10-year-old children recruited from primary care, to either HT or CR arms.Economic evaluation A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken. A five-year horizon was chosen. A societal perspective was adopted. Estimation of direct, indirect and opportunity costs were presented. Costs were discounted at 1.5%. Molar survival was chosen as the effectiveness measure.Data analysis Statistical significance of primary outcome (survival) was examined using the log-rank test. Bootstrapping produced a sampling distribution of mean cost and effectiveness with a 95% confidence interval around a mean value. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was provided.Results HT molars had superior survival of 99% (95% CI 98-100%) compared to CR at 92% (95% CI 87-97%). Initials costs indicated HT to be more expensive than CR; however, direct costs, including retreatments, were cheaper for HT when using both NHS Scotland and NHS England cost data. Indirect/opportunity costs, including time and travel of parents, were significantly less for HT. Total cumulative costs were significantly lower in HT (32 GBP; 95% CI 31-34) than CR (49 GBP; 34-69). Bisindolylmaleimide IX HT dominated CR, being less costly and more effective with a mean ICER of 2.38 GBP spent additionally while losing 1% of molar survival with CR over HT.Conclusions HT molars are cost-effective, compared to CR, when managing asymptomatic carious primary molars after five years' follow-up.Data sources A search of electronic databases (Embase and PubMed) was carried out along with manual and grey searches of published and unpublished journals. Publication year was from first available until 23 August 2018.Study selection Titles and abstracts from the original search were reviewed by two authors. Studies were chosen for full-text analysis and data extraction after inter-reviewer agreement. Disagreement was resolved by discussion and Cohen's kappa was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement. An initial search gave 2,197 articles and, following screening, 18 publications were included in the study. Five articles were case series and ten were case reports describing one to nine cases. Three publications reported on comparatively large sample sizes, one prospectively and two retrospectively. None of the studies had control groups or blinding. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Studies were deemed to have high, low or unclear levels of bias by two examiners. All were considered high phines were used for explantation of 35 implants with 94% success. Piezosurgery and Er, Cr YSGG laser removed 11 implants and one implant, respectively, with 100% success. One study reported perforation of the maxillary sinus floor following the use of a trephine technique, while another reported the fracture of three implants using reverse torque. The quality of the studies and lack of available data prevented further analysis. Results were presented in a narrative format.Conclusion The authors recommend reverse torque as the first choice for explantation. Despite its inferior success rate, it is the most conservative technique in terms of bone removal and flap access, meaning there is a greater opportunity for immediate implant placement.