Preterm low birthweight and the role of oral bacteria

Preterm and low birthweight (PTLBW) continues to be a major cause of mortality and morbidity across the world. In recent years, maternal periodontal disease has been implicated as a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is conflicting evidence to support such an outcome as illustrated by descriptive, case control and randomised controlled trials involving pregnant women from across the world, using different measurement tools to determine the level of periodontal disease. Whilst considering the literature, there is evidence for both arguments, based on the effect of periodontal inflammatory by products. Bacteria associated with periodontal disease are not dissimilar to those known to be associated with genito-urinary bacterial infections and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Several groups have demonstrated the apparent translocation of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella nigrescens, Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonus gingivalis, Treponema denticola to the foetal placental unit whereby a maternal or foetal response has been detected resulting in premature birth or low birthweight. The normal process of parturition involves a cascade of events including a build-up of inflammatory mediators as linked to inflammation, whereby the maternal environment becomes hostile and threatens the well-being of the infant, and the foetus expelled. The question remains therefore, is there a greater risk of delivering a PTLBW infant when the mother has detectable periodontal disease, or is the release of inflammatory mediators and their translocation via the haematogenous route sufficient to induce a poor pregnancy outcome? The data investigated would suggest that there is a positive outcome when certain oral gram-negative bacteria create a cumulative effect sufficient to trigger early delivery, which represents the final straw to result in preterm or low birthweight delivery. There is equally sufficient epidemiological evidence that does not support this outcome, but it is agreed that maintaining oral health during pregnancy is beneficial to the mother and her infant

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015. OBJECTIVES: We will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.Morbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings. MAIN RESULTS: In our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost