Evaluation thérapeutique en médecine bucco-dentaire : comparaison entre essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles

Split-mouth RCTs are common in oral health medicine. However, some authors have suggested that intervention effect estimates from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs may differ. Besides, prospective registration of RCTs is currently the best solution to reporting bias. First, we performed a meta-epidemiological study to compare intervention effect estimates between split-mouth RCTs and parallel-arm RCTs. There was no sufficient evidence for a difference in intervention effect estimates derived from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same clinical question. Our results support the use of all available evidence in systematic reviews, including that from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs, and authors should consider including split-mouth RCTs in their meta-analyses with suitable and appropriate statistical analysis. Second, we assessed how many split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs with results published in 2013 in a sample of oral health journals had been prospectively registered in trial registries. Of 317 identified RCTs, we showed that only 23% of RCTs were registered. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively. We did not find any statistically significant difference between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs. In conclusion, we have proposed recommendations regarding the integration of splitmouth RCTs in research, from the point of view of researchers and of medical journal editors.Les essais randomisés split-mouth, sont fréquents en médecine buccodentaire. Cependant, certains auteurs ont suggéré que les effets traitement estimés différaient de ceux fournis par les essais en bras parallèles. Par ailleurs, l'enregistrement prospectif des essais est actuellement la meilleure solution pour lutter contre le biais de publication. Premièrement, nous avons comparé les effets traitement estimés entre essais split-mouth et en bras parallèles par une étude méta-épidémiologique. Nous n'avons pas mis en évidence de différence statistiquement significative dans l'estimation de l'effet traitement entre essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles à question clinique identique. Ces résultats suggèrent que les auteurs de revues systématiques devraient exploiter toutes les preuves disponibles, et qu'en particulier les essais randomisés split-mouth devraient être inclus dans les méta-analyses avec une analyse appropriée.Deuxièmement, nous avons évalué l'enregistrement prospectif sur des registres publics des essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles publiés en 2013 dans un échantillon de revues de médecine bucco-dentaire. Sur un échantillon de 317 essais randomisés, nous avons montré que seuls 23% des essais étaient enregistrés. Parmi les essais enregistrés, 91% étaient enregistrés rétrospectivement. Nous n'avons pas mis en évidence de différence statistiquement significative entre essais split-mouth et essais en bras parallèles.En conclusion, nous avons proposé des recommandations relatives à l'intégration des essais randomisés split-mouth au sein de la recherche, tant du point de vue du chercheur que de celui des éditeurs de revue médicale

Therapeutic evaluation in oral-health medicine : comparison between split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials

Les essais randomisés split-mouth, sont fréquents en médecine buccodentaire. Cependant, certains auteurs ont suggéré que les effets traitement estimés différaient de ceux fournis par les essais en bras parallèles. Par ailleurs, l'enregistrement prospectif des essais est actuellement la meilleure solution pour lutter contre le biais de publication. Premièrement, nous avons comparé les effets traitement estimés entre essais split-mouth et en bras parallèles par une étude méta-épidémiologique. Nous n'avons pas mis en évidence de différence statistiquement significative dans l'estimation de l'effet traitement entre essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles à question clinique identique. Ces résultats suggèrent que les auteurs de revues systématiques devraient exploiter toutes les preuves disponibles, et qu'en particulier les essais randomisés split-mouth devraient être inclus dans les méta-analyses avec une analyse appropriée.Deuxièmement, nous avons évalué l'enregistrement prospectif sur des registres publics des essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles publiés en 2013 dans un échantillon de revues de médecine bucco-dentaire. Sur un échantillon de 317 essais randomisés, nous avons montré que seuls 23% des essais étaient enregistrés. Parmi les essais enregistrés, 91% étaient enregistrés rétrospectivement. Nous n'avons pas mis en évidence de différence statistiquement significative entre essais split-mouth et essais en bras parallèles.En conclusion, nous avons proposé des recommandations relatives à l'intégration des essais randomisés split-mouth au sein de la recherche, tant du point de vue du chercheur que de celui des éditeurs de revue médicale.Split-mouth RCTs are common in oral health medicine. However, some authors have suggested that intervention effect estimates from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs may differ. Besides, prospective registration of RCTs is currently the best solution to reporting bias. First, we performed a meta-epidemiological study to compare intervention effect estimates between split-mouth RCTs and parallel-arm RCTs. There was no sufficient evidence for a difference in intervention effect estimates derived from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same clinical question. Our results support the use of all available evidence in systematic reviews, including that from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs, and authors should consider including split-mouth RCTs in their meta-analyses with suitable and appropriate statistical analysis. Second, we assessed how many split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs with results published in 2013 in a sample of oral health journals had been prospectively registered in trial registries. Of 317 identified RCTs, we showed that only 23% of RCTs were registered. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively. We did not find any statistically significant difference between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs. In conclusion, we have proposed recommendations regarding the integration of splitmouth RCTs in research, from the point of view of researchers and of medical journal editors

Clinical efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: A systematic review

International audienceLarge tooth substance losses are frequent in posterior teeth because of primary caries or aging restorations. Inlays and onlays are often the minimal invasive solution in such cases, but the efficacy of the composite and ceramic materials used is unknown. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of composite and ceramic inlays or onlays

Split-mouth and parallel-arm trials to compare pain with intraosseous anaesthesia delivered by the computerised Quicksleeper system and conventional infiltration anaesthesia in paediatric oral healthcare: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

International audienceINTRODUCTION: Local anaesthesia is commonly used in paediatric oral healthcare. Infiltration anaesthesia is the most frequently used, but recent developments in anaesthesia techniques have introduced an alternative: intraosseous anaesthesia. We propose to perform a split-mouth and parallel-arm multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the pain caused by the insertion of the needle for the injection of conventional infiltration anaesthesia, and intraosseous anaesthesia by the computerised QuickSleeper system, in children and adolescents.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria are patients 7-15 years old with at least 2 first permanent molars belonging to the same dental arch (for the split-mouth RCT) or with a first permanent molar (for the parallel-arm RCT) requiring conservative or endodontic treatment limited to pulpotomy. The setting of this study is the Department of Paediatric Dentistry at 3 University dental hospitals in France. The primary outcome measure will be pain reported by the patient on a visual analogue scale concerning the insertion of the needle and the injection/infiltration. Secondary outcomes are latency, need for additional anaesthesia during the treatment and pain felt during the treatment. We will use a computer-generated permuted-block randomisation sequence for allocation to anaesthesia groups. The random sequences will be stratified by centre (and by dental arch for the parallel-arm RCT). Only participants will be blinded to group assignment. Data will be analysed by the intent-to-treat principle. In all, 160 patients will be included (30 in the split-mouth RCT, 130 in the parallel-arm RCT).ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the French ethics committee for the protection of people (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Ile de France I) and will be conducted in full accordance with accepted ethical principles. Findings will be reported in scientific publications and at research conferences, and in project summary papers for participants

Methodological management of end-of-life decision data in intensive care studies: A systematic review of 178 randomized control trials published in seven major journals.

BackgroundEnd-of-life (EOL) decisions are a serious ethical dilemma and are frequently carried out in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this systematic review was to investigated the different approaches used in ICUs and reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address EOL decisions and compare the impact of these different strategies regarding potential bias and mortality estimates.MethodsWe identified relevant RCTs published in the past 15 years via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched The Cochrane Library and checked registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov to assess concordance between declared and published outcomes. Among the journals we screened were the 3 ICU specialty journals and the four general medicine journals with the highest impact factor. Only RCTs were selected in which in-ICU mortality was the primary or secondary outcome. The primary outcome was information regarding EOL decisions, and the secondary outcome was how EOL decisions were treated in the study analysis.ResultsA total of 178 relevant trials were identified. The details regarding the methodological aspects resulting from EOL decisions were reported in only 62 articles (35%). The manner in which EOL decisions were considered in the study analysis was very heterogeneous, often leading to a high risk of bias.ConclusionThere is a heterogeneity regarding the management of data on EOL decisions in randomized control trials with mortality endpoints. Recommendations or rules are required regarding the inclusion of patients with potential EOL decisions in RCT analyses and how to manage such decisions from a methodological point of view.Trial registrationPROSPERO website (CRD42013005724)

Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study

International audienc

Prevalence and risk indicators of first-wave COVID-19 among oral health-care workers: A French epidemiological survey.

BackgroundPrevious studies have highlighted the increased risk of contracting the COVID-19 for health-care workers and suggest that oral health-care workers may carry the greatest risk. Considering the transmission route of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, a similar increased risk can be hypothesized for other respiratory infections. However, no study has specifically assessed the risk of contracting COVID-19 within the dental profession.MethodsAn online survey was conducted within a population of French dental professionals between April 1 and April 29, 2020. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore risk indicators associated with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and COVID-19-related clinical phenotypes (i.e. phenotypes present in 15% or more of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases).Results4172 dentists and 1868 dental assistants responded to the survey, representing approximately 10% of French oral health-care workers. The prevalence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 was 1.9% for dentists and 0.8% for dental assistants. Higher prevalence was found for COVID-19-related clinical phenotypes both in dentists (15.0%) and dental assistants (11.8%). Chronic kidney disease and obesity were associated with increased odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, whereas working in a practice limited to endodontics was associated with decreased odds. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, use of public transportation and having a practice limited to periodontology were associated with increased odds of presenting a COVID-19-related clinical phenotype. Moreover, changes in work rhythm or clinical practice were associated with decreased odds of both outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough oral health-care professionals were surprisingly not at higher risk of COVID-19 than the general population, specific risk indicators could exist, notably among high aerosol-generating dental subspecialties such as periodontology. Considering the similarities between COVID-19-related clinical phenotypes other viral respiratory infections, lessons can be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the usefulness of equipping and protecting oral health-care workers, notably during seasonal viral outbreaks, to limit infection spread.ImpactResults from this study may provide important insights for relevant health authorities regarding the overall infection status of oral health-care workers in the current pandemic and draw attention to particular at-risk groups, as illustrated in the present study. Protecting oral health-care workers could be an interesting public health strategy to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 and/or the emergence of new pandemics

Burosumab and Dental Abscesses in Children With X‐Linked Hypophosphatemia

International audienc

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

International audienceTo ensure evidence-based decision-making in pediatric oral health, Cochrane systematic reviews that address topics pertinent to this field are necessary. We aimed to identify all systematic reviews of paediatric dentistry and oral health by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), summarize their characteristics and assess their methodological quality. Our second objective was to assess implications for practice in the review conclusions and provide an overview of clinical implications about the usefulness of paediatric oral health interventions in practice