Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “OHRQoL”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life following pulp therapy or extraction in paediatric patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision between pulp therapy and extraction for compromised teeth in paediatric patients remains a topic of debate. While both approaches address the associated pain, their long-term impact on children's well-being remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to analyse and compare the impact of pulp therapy and extraction on OHRQoL in paediatric patients. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in multiple electronic databases. Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the RoB 2 tool for randomised controlled trials, ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising a total of 1367 participants met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that pulp therapy was associated with superior OHRQoL outcomes compared to extraction. Children who underwent pulp therapy reported lower anxiety, better emotional well-being, and higher parental satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity among the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSION: Pulp therapy may offer better OHRQoL outcomes than extractions in paediatric patients by preserving function, reducing anxiety, and minimising long-term complications. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously since the available evidence was limited and of low to very low certainty. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are required.

Children

Evaluation of intravenous sedation in dental implant surgeries: A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of intravenous sedation on patient-centered outcomes during implant and bone augmentation surgeries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study included 40 patients undergoing placement of &#x2265;3 implants, with or without bone augmentation. Patients underwent surgery under either intravenous sedation (n = 20) or local anesthesia alone (n = 20), according to routine clinical decision-making and patient preference. The sedation group received intravenous sedation with a multimodal regimen comprising remimazolam, dexmedetomidine, alfentanil, and low-dose esketamine, whereas the control group received local anesthesia only. Patient-reported outcome measures, hemodynamic parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, SpO2), postoperative pain (0-10 scale), and OHRQoL (OHIP-14) were recorded from baseline through 7 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Intravenous sedation was associated with significantly lower intraoperative pain (0.5 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 3.25 &#xb1; 2.40, p = 0.003), anxiety (1 [IQR: 0&#x223c;2.75] vs. 4 [IQR: 3&#x223c;6], p = 0.001), and experienced discomfort (2 [IQR: 1&#x223c;3.75] vs. 4.15 &#xb1; 2.16, p = 0.016), and shortened perceived treatment duration (2.90 &#xb1; 2.34 vs. 5 [IQR: 4&#x223c;5], p = 0.020). Early postoperative pain was lower in the sedation group from Days 1-4 (p = 0.003-0.010). Hemodynamic parameters were more stable under sedation, with lower SBP (116.42 &#xb1; 13.32 vs. 144.11 &#xb1; 17.42 mmHg, p < 0.001), DBP (73.21 &#xb1; 10.28 vs. 82.37 &#xb1; 11.03 mmHg, p = 0.012), and HR (71.00 [IQR: 62.50&#x223c;79.25] vs. 85.00 &#xb1; 10.72 bpm, p = 0.021). OHRQoL scores favored the sedation group in swallowing, diet, malaise, and daily activities, particularly during the first three postoperative days (p=0.006-0.040). CONCLUSION: Intravenous sedation may enhance the patient experience during implant and/or bone augmentation procedures by reducing intraoperative pain and anxiety, improving hemodynamic stability, and promoting better early-postoperative recovery and OHRQoL. These findings suggest that intravenous sedation provides a safe and effective alternative for implant dentistry surgery, particularly for anxious or pain-sensitive individuals.

Humans