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

Beta2-adrenoceptor agonists for dysmenorrhoea

Background:Dysmenorrhoea is a common gynaecological complaint that can affect as many as 50% of premenopausal women, 10% of whom suffer severely enough to be rendered incapacitated for one to three days during each menstrual cycle. Primary dysmenorrhoea is where women suffer from menstrual pain but lack any pathology in their pelvic anatomy. Beta2-adrenoceptor agonists have been used in the treatment of women with primary dysmenorrhoea but their effects are unclear.Objectives:To determine the effectiveness and safety of beta2-adrenoceptor agonists in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the EBM Reviews databases. The last search was on 22 August 2011.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing beta2-adrenoceptor agonists with placebo or no treatment, each other or any other conventional treatment in women of reproductive age with primary dysmenorrhoea. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.Main results:Five trials involving 187 women with an age range of 15 to 40 years were included. Oral isoxsuprine was compared with placebo in two trials, terbutaline oral spray, ritodrine chloride and oral hydroxyphenyl-orciprenalin were compared with placebo in a further three trials. Clinical diversity in the studies in terms of the interventions being evaluated, assessments at different time points and the use of different assessment tools mitigated against pooling of outcome data across studies in order to provide a summary estimate of effect for any of the comparisons. Only one study, with unclear risk of bias, reported pain relief with a combination of isoxsuprine, acetaminophen and caffeine. None of the other studies reported any significant clinical difference in effectiveness between the intervention and placebo. Adverse effects were reported with all of these medications in up to a quarter of the total number of participants. They included nausea, vomiting, dizziness, quivering, tremor and palpitations.Authors\u27 conclusions:The evidence presented in this review was based on a few relatively small-sized studies that were categorised to have unclear to high risk of bias, which does not allow confident decision-making at present about the use of beta2-adrenoceptor agonists for dysmenorrhoea. The benefits as reported in one study should be balanced against the wide array of unacceptable side effects documented with this class of medication. We have emphasised the lack of precision and limitations in the reported data where appropriate

Vitamin K supplementation for cystic fibrosis (Review)

Background: Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder which can lead to multiorgan dysfunction. Malabsorption of fat and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) may occur and can cause subclinical deficiencies of some of these vitamins. Vitamin K is known to play an important role in both blood coagulation and bone formation. Supplementation with vitamin K appears to be one way of addressing the deficiency, but there is very limited agreement on the appropriate dose and frequency of use of these supplements. Objectives: To assess the effects of vitamin K supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis and to determine the optimal dose and route of administration of vitamin K for both routine and therapeutic use. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 11 October 2012. Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of vitamin K used as a supplement compared to either no supplementation (or placebo) at any dose or route and for any duration, in children or adults diagnosed with cystic fibrosis (by sweat test or genetic testing). Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. Main results: Two trials (total of 32 participants) were included in the review and were assessed as having a moderate risk of bias. One was a dose-ranging parallel group trial; and the other had a cross-over design, but no separate data were reported for the first intervention period. Neither of the trials addressed any of the primary outcomes (coagulation, bone formation and quality of life). Both trials reported the restoration of serum vitamin K and undercarboxylated osteocalcin levels to the normal range after one month of daily supplementation with 1 mg of vitamin K. Authors' conclusions: Evidence from randomised controlled trials on the benefits of routine vitamin K supplementation for people with CF is currently weak and limited to two small trials of short duration. However, no harm was found and until further evidence is available, the present recommendations should be adhered to

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

Dermatology-oncolog

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