Resorbable versus titanium plates for orthognathic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: This review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis

Background Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2016. Objectives To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. Search methods We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 February 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 February 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 18 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 18 February 2019). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. Data collection and analysis Three review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of included studies using GRADE. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. Main results No additional trials could be included in this update. One trial at low risk of bias evaluating oral penicillin in combination with analgesics versus placebo with analgesics, involving 40 participants was included in a former update of the review. The certainty of the evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. Our primary outcome was patient‐reported pain (intensity/duration) and pain relief. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention (median 6.0, interquartile range (IQR) 10.5), and for placebo (median 6.0, IQR 9.5) over the seven‐day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.20 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.60 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference ‐0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) ‐4.23 to 3.43; P = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.90 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI ‐1.23 to 6.13; P = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study

Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth.

UNLABELLED: Root canal treatment is a frequently performed dental procedure and is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis of the dental pulp. Removal of the necrotic tissue remnants and cleaning and shaping of the root canal are important phases of root canal treatment. Treatment options include the use of hand and rotary instruments and methods using ultrasonic or sonic equipment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials were to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic instrumentation alone or in conjunction with hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search strategy retrieved 226 references from the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (7), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (12), MEDLINE (192), EMBASE (8) and LILACS (7). No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on December 13th, 2007. Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently. RESULTS: Results were to be expressed as fixed-effect or random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. No eligible randomized controlled trials were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This review illustrates the current lack of published or ongoing randomized controlled trials and the unavailability of high-level evidence based on clinically relevant outcomes referring to the effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation used alone or as an adjunct to hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment. In the absence of reliable research-based evidence, clinicians should base their decisions on clinical experience, individual circumstances and in conjunction with patients' preferences where appropriate. Future randomized controlled trials might focus more closely on evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of these interventions with an emphasis on not only clinically relevant, but also patient-centered outcomes

Performance and Tolerability of the Moisturizers Cetaphil(A (R)) and Excipial(A (R)) in Atopic Dermatitis: What is the Evidence Based on Randomized Trials?

Dermatology-oncolog

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

Dermatology-oncolog

I've got toothache, I need antibiotics: a UK perspective on rational antibiotic prescribing by dentists

Antibiotics do not cure toothache. This headline message of the United Kingdom’s (UK) Dental Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) toolkit’s posters and leaflets is aimed at patients; clinicians are expected to know this already. Evidence based clinical guidelines exist to set clear standards for good clinical practice yet there are barriers to compliance. The national AMS audit tool is designed for clinicians to review their management of acute dental conditions, including but not limited to the prescription of antibiotics. In this article we aim to help dental teams protect their patients and themselves from adverse events related to antibiotic prescription. It explores the emergent problem of Clostridium difficile, antibiotic resistance and severe sepsis, and considers some of the barriers, which clinicians have suggested, contribute to the unjustified prescription of antibiotics. Dentists must weigh the risks against the benefits before prescribing any antibiotic

Global guidelines in dermatology mapping project (GUIDEMAP): a systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include ‘strength and wording of recommendations’, ‘applicability’, ‘updating’ and ‘external review’. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.</p

Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development

Objective To identify evidence on the reporting quality of consensus methodology and to select potential checklist items for the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) project to develop a consensus reporting guideline.Design Systematic review.Data sources Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO from inception until 7 January 2022.Eligibility criteria Studies, reviews and published guidance addressing the reporting quality of consensus methodology for improvement of health outcomes in biomedicine or clinical practice. Reports of studies using or describing consensus methods but not commenting on their reporting quality were excluded. No language restrictions were applied.Data extraction and synthesis Screening and data extraction of eligible studies were carried out independently by two authors. Reporting quality items addressed by the studies were synthesised narratively.Results Eighteen studies were included: five systematic reviews, four narrative reviews, three research papers, three conference abstracts, two research guidance papers and one protocol. The majority of studies indicated that the quality of reporting of consensus methodology could be improved. Commonly addressed items were: consensus panel composition; definition of consensus and the threshold for achieving consensus. Items least addressed were: public patient involvement (PPI); the role of the steering committee, chair, cochair; conflict of interest of panellists and funding. Data extracted from included studies revealed additional items that were not captured in the data extraction form such as justification of deviation from the protocol or incentives to encourage panellist response.Conclusion The results of this systematic review confirmed the need for a reporting checklist for consensus methodology and provided a range of potential checklist items to report. The next step in the ACCORD project builds on this systematic review and focuses on reaching consensus on these items to develop the reporting guideline.Dermatology and Venereolog