Biomedical subjects

P Coulthard

Publications and source records attributed to P Coulthard.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Changes in the levels of knowledge and attitudes of dental hospital staff about domestic violence following attendance at an awareness raising seminar.

OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in dental team knowledge and awareness about domestic violence following attendance at a brief training intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five dental hospital staff at the University of Manchester Dental Hospital attended a two-hour session delivered by Manchester's City Wide NHS Domestic Violence Project manager. Participants completed identical questionnaires immediately before and after the session. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine changes in responses to individual questions before and after training. Independent sample t-tests were also conducted to compare mean responses by sex. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were seen in 50% of attitude questions and 100% of knowledge questions. After training, there was improved recognition that interpersonal violence was a health issue and that the dental profession should be more involved in identification of abuse. There was also improved comfort asking about abuse and respondents were less afraid of offending the patient and less likely to blame the victims for being abused. Statistically significant sex differences at baseline were also seen for several items: females obtaining more correct answers at baseline than males. CONCLUSIONS: Brief domestic violence training interventions can be effective in improving knowledge and attitudes amongst a dental team but could lead to false confidence in staff and should be followed by in-depth practical training and the development of appropriate processes for dealing with abuse victims.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants).

BACKGROUND: Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone height might be maintained thus possibly improving the aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures of the immediately placed implants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate success, function, complications and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preference RCT evaluating immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included. One RCT compared immediate implants placed in periapical infected sites versus delayed implants in 50 patients and after 1 year found no statistically significant differences. The second RCT compared immediate-delayed versus immediate implants in 46 patients. After 1 year and a half there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed by the patient and the papilla height assessed by the dentist. However, patients in the delayed group perceiving the period between tooth extraction and insertion of the crown significantly longer than patients in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference of VAS -20.30 (95% CI -33.36 to -7.24). There was also statistically significantly higher patient satisfaction in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference (VAS) -6.51 (95% CI -12.63 to -0.39). An independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate in the immediate-delayed group, with risk ratio (RR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.72). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite that the evidence is derived from only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, it is possible to suggest that immediate implants and immediate-delayed implants may offer some advantages over conventional implants in healed sites in terms of patient satisfaction and aesthetics possibly by preserving alveolar bone. Immediate implants can work and are able to shorten treatment periods, however properly designed RCTs are still needed to fully evaluate the potential advantages and risks of this treatment modality since more complications and failures may occur.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMed2006

Intraoperative local anaesthesia for paediatric postoperative oral surgery pain--a randomized controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to improve the pain experience for children following oral surgery under general anaesthesia. To this end, the efficacy and safety of intraoperative local anaesthetic (2% lidocaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine) for postoperative pain control was investigated. In a randomized controlled trial, 142 patients aged 12 years or less, who were scheduled for dental extractions under general anaesthesia, received local anaesthesia or saline intraoral injection after induction of anaesthesia. There was statistically no significant difference between groups for pain scores recorded preoperatively, on waking, at 30 min, at 24h, or for distress scores recorded preoperatively, on waking and at 30 min. 'Severe' pain scores were recorded for 13% of treatment and 12% of control patients and 'very severe' for 13% of treatment and 10% of control patients on waking. These rates were similar at 30 min but reduced at 24h. Lip/cheek biting injuries occurred in one control and three treatment patients. Intraoperative local anaesthesia has been found to be effective for pain control following a range of other surgical procedures, but we did not find it to be effective in reducing postoperative pain or distress in children after oral surgery. Reasons may include unfamiliarity with altered orofacial sensation.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2006

Cascade training.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Defibrillators↗

PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: 1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; 2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; 3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; 4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; 5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed.

Dental Implants↗

PubMed2006

Arteriovenous malformation of the mandible--a case report.

Both arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and solitary bone cysts of the mandible are uncommon lesions. The latter can be considered fairly innocuous but AVMs require careful management. The following is a description of a case where an arteriovenous malformation of the mandible presented with mental nerve paraesthesia. However, radiographically the features appeared to be consistent with a solitary bone cyst. It is important for clinicians in both a primary and secondary care setting to be aware that this type of lesion can have life threatening complications.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: (A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 1 October 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 330 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. No bone promoting molecule has been shown to be effective or necessary in conjunction with dental implant treatment. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development. OBJECTIVES: To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

PubMed2005

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest and maxillary sinus to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants are also needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilize the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that in some situations bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed denture could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for using zygomatic implants could be the need of maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for severely resorbed maxillae. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) including patients with severely resorbed maxillae who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus patients treated with conventional dental implants in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures having a follow up of at least 1 year. Outcome measures considered were: prosthesis and implant failures, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is the need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation↗

PubMed2005

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performances. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 28 June 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one different RCTs were identified. Twelve of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 512 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Twelve different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient ' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for peri-implant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Branemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to loose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference if any exists. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMed2004

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis.

Dental Implants↗

PubMed2004

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining health around dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To maintain healthy tissues around dental implants it is important to institute an effective preventive regimen (supportive therapy). Different maintenance regimens have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference between different interventions for maintaining healthy tissues around dental implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 2 February 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or recovering healthy tissues around dental implants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quality assessment of the included RCTs in duplicate and contacted the authors for missing information. We independently extracted the data in duplicate. We followed the Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were identified. Five of these trials, which reported results from a total of 127 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Two trials evaluated the efficacy of powered and sonic toothbrushes, respectively, when compared to manual toothbrushing and showed no statistically significant differences. One RCT compared Listerine versus placebo mouthwashes showing a reduction of 54% in plaque and 34% in marginal bleeding compared with the placebo. One trial compared self administered subgingival chlorhexidine irrigation versus chlorhexidine mouthwash. The group using chlorhexidine irrigation resulted in statistically significantly lower mean plaque scores and a marginal bleeding index than the group using chlorhexidine mouthwash, however the mouthwash was given at a suboptimal dosage. One study compared etching gel with mechanical debridement showing no statistical differences. Follow ups ranged between 6 weeks and 5 months. It was not possible to make any meta-analysis as each trial assessed different interventions. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining health around peri-implant tissues. There was no evidence that the use of powered or sonic toothbrushes was superior to manual toothbrushing. There is weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as adjunct to routine oral hygiene is effective in reducing plaque formation and marginal bleeding around implants. There was no evidence that phosphoric etching gel offered any clinical advantage over mechanical debridement. These findings are based on RCTs having short follow-up periods and few subjects. There is not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long term maintenance. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials powered to find possible differences, using primary outcome measures and with much longer follow up. Such trials should be reported according the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Dental Implants↗

PubMed2004

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated oral implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediate and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times 1 year after loading. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 oral implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 2 February 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow up of at least 1 year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants loaded at different times. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomization and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified and five trials including 124 patients in total were suitable for inclusion. Implants have been either immediately loaded after insertion (2 to 3 days), early loaded (6 weeks) or conventionally loaded (3 to 8 months) in edentulous mandibles of adequate bone quality and shape. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone loss on intra-oral radiographs. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: While it is possible to successfully load oral implants immediately after their placement in mandibles of adequate bone density and height of carefully selected patients, it is yet unknown how predictable this approach is. More well designed RCTs are needed to understand how predictable immediate and early loading are. Such trials should be simply designed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). It is suggested that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of immediately loaded implants rather than early loaded ones.

Bone Density↗

PubMed2004

Tissue adhesives for closure of surgical incisions.

BACKGROUND: Sutures, staples and adhesive tapes are the traditional methods of wound closure, whilst tissue adhesives have entered clinical practice more recently. Closure of wounds with sutures enables meticulous closure, but sutures may induce tissue reactivity and they usually require removal. Tissue adhesives offer the advantages there are no sutures to remove later for the patient and no risk of needlestick injury to the surgeon. Tissue adhesives have been used primarily in emergency rooms but this review looks at the use of tissue adhesives in the operating room where surgeons are increasingly using these for the closure of surgical skin incisions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effects of various tissue adhesives and conventional skin closure techniques on the healing of surgical wounds. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and wound care product manufacturers were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies and data extraction was conducted independently and in triplicate whilst assessment of the methodological quality of the trials was conducted independently and in duplicate. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included (630 patients). No statistically significant differences were found between various tissue adhesives and sutures (8 trials) for dehiscence, infection, satisfaction with cosmetic appearance when assessed by patients' or surgeons' general satisfaction. Nor were differences found between a tissue adhesive and tapes (2 trials) for infection, patients' assessment of cosmetic appearance, patient satisfaction or surgeon satisfaction. However a statistically significant difference was found for surgeons' assessment of cosmetic appearance with mean difference 13 (95%CI 5 to 21), the higher mean rating for the tissue adhesive group. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons may consider the use of tissue adhesives as an alternative to sutures or adhesive tape for the closure of incisions in the operating room. There is a need for trials in all areas but in particular to include patients that require incision closure in areas of high tension and patients of general health that may impair wound healing.

Bandages↗

PubMed2004

Domestic violence screening and intervention programmes for adults with dental or facial injury.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence exists in all communities across the world. Healthcare services have a pivotal role in the identification, assessment and response to domestic violence. As the face is a common target in assault, dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons are in a unique position to screen for domestic violence in the context of presentation of dental and facial injury. Owing to lack of training, dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons may not be the best persons to give advice to someone experiencing domestic violence. Improper advice such as encouragement to leave an abusive relationship may escalate the frequency of violence. It may be more appropriate to refer to specialist agencies for intervention and support. It would, therefore be useful to know whether screening and intervention programmes are effective. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the benefits and harms of intervention programmes employed to reduce and or prevent domestic violence in adults with dental and/or facial injuries.(2) To assess the benefits and harms of screening and the use of different screening tools in the detection of the proportion of adult victims of domestic violence who present with dental and/or facial injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Lilacs databases. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts were used and international domestic violence organisations were contacted to identify any unpublished trials. Last search was done February 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving adults aged 16 years and over presenting with dental and/or facial injury relating to domestic violence in any healthcare setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support or refute that screening for domestic violence in adults with dental or facial injury is beneficial nor that it causes harm. Screening tools to detect domestic violence exist but no RCTs have specifically evaluated their effectiveness for patients presenting with facial and or dental injuries. There is also lack of evidence that intervention programmes are effective at reducing frequency of physical assaults and at reducing the severity of facial injuries.

Domestic Violence↗

PubMed2003

Prevention. Part 5: Preventive strategies for patients requiring osseointegrated oral implant treatment.

Prevention for patients requiring rehabilitation with oral implants is about preventing implant failure and biomechanical complications. This paper describes preventative strategies for the planning stage for implant treatment and the later maintenance period and indicates the level of scientific evidence supporting these strategies.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

PubMed2003

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: surgical techniques for placing dental implants.

BACKGROUND: Many variations in the surgical technique for the placement of dental implants have been developed since the introduction of implant surgery into clinical practice. These include variations in the timing of implant placement in relation to the tooth removal, and variations in the way the recipient bone site is prepared, amongst others. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for placing dental implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. In addition, the bibliographies of review articles were checked for studies outside the handsearched journals and personal references were searched. 55 implant companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of implant surgical techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and data and quality assessment was carried out (ME, PC). Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (HW, PC). The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (six publications) were suitable for inclusion in this review of the nine RCTs (11 publications) identified. Two different aspects of implant surgical technique were reported in these RCTs. These were, two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for any of these alternative techniques with respect to implant failures, marginal bone levels, morbidity or patient satisfaction. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review included studies evaluating the surgical techniques of two versus four implants to support a mandibular overdenture and crestal versus vestibular incision for implant placement. Based on the available results of RCTs, there is no strong evidence supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques for either of these two aspects of surgical technique. These conclusions are based on a few RCTs for each aspect of surgical technique and some with relatively short follow-up periods and few patients.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMed2003

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Dental implants require sufficient bone to adequately stabilise. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for use in bone augmentation. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. Implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality assessment was carried out and authors were contacted for any missing information. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (n = 95) were suitable for inclusion in this review, assessing three different aspects of bone augmentation techniques: onlay grafting with and without a barrier membrane, grafting with a resorbable and non-resorbable membrane, and membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR). Trials reported on augmentation procedures up to abutment connection only. At the patient level there were no statistically significant differences for the alternative techniques for onlay grafting with respect to the degree of bone graft resorption and wound dehiscence. One trial showed statistically significantly more infections in the non-resorbable group compared to the resorbable group, relative risk 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.00 to 0.74). One study of GBR with a resorbable versus non-resorbable membrane indicated no statistically significant difference in early implant failure, reduction in bone defect or wound dehiscence. The other GBR study compared a non-resorbable membrane with no membrane and reported no statistically significant difference in wound infection or dehiscence but a significant increase in per cent bone gain for the test group compared to control, mean difference = 70 (95% CI: 36 to 104, p = 0.002). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from available RCTs supporting superior success with one or other of the alternative techniques examined. There was weak evidence that a non-resorbable membrane was better than no membrane for permitting bone growth about dental implants, and that a resorbable membrane over a bone graft may allow healing with fewer infections than a non-resorbable membrane.

Animals↗