Outcomes of periodontal therapy: Strengthening the relevance of research to patients. A co-created review.

Periodontitis is a long-term condition affecting up to half of the population globally and causing significant impacts on life quality. Successful management depends on taking life-long ownership of the condition by those affected. There is a wealth of research to inform on management options. However, most of the research has been designed by professional experts with outcomes to gauge benefits and harms based on parameters that inform on the disease process but which might not be informative to support decision-making in people with lived experience (PWLE) of periodontal ill-health (including both patients and carers). The importance of relevant outcomes is highlighted in the concept of the "expert patient" which aims to strengthen the capacity of PWLE to make health-care choices that are important for them, elements of which are likely to be already familiar to many clinicians delivering periodontal health care. Therefore, the voice and collaboration of PWLE in research are recognised as crucial to developing high quality, relevant evidence especially for long-term conditions. In this paper, we review what is known about the relevance of treatment outcomes to PWLE. We also examine the degree to which PWLE have been involved in identifying outcomes that are important to them as well as the diversity and therefore representativeness of PWLE recruited for studies. We consider why having more relevant outcomes could enhance the expertise of PWLE in managing their periodontitis. We then conclude with key learnings from our review which we hope will encourage more rapid development of these initiatives in periodontology for the benefit of global health and wellbeing.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology.

AIM: To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology. RESULTS: From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes. CONCLUSION: This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Involving people with lived experience in developing a core outcome set for implant dentistry research. The Implant Dentistry-Core Outcomes Sets and Measures (ID-COSM) project.

AIMS: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology.

AIM: To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology. RESULTS: From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes. CONCLUSION: This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Involving people with lived experience in developing a core outcome set for implant dentistry research. The Implant Dentistry-Core Outcomes Sets and Measures (ID-COSM) project.

AIMS: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Recurrence and progression of periodontitis and methods of management in long-term care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the recurrence of disease of people in long-term supportive periodontal care (SPC), previously treated for periodontitis, and determine the effect of different methods of managing recurrence. The review focused on stage IV periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted (until May 2020) for prospective clinical trials. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were retrieved to address recurrence of disease in long-term SPC. Eight studies were included in the meta-analyses for tooth loss, and three studies for disease progression/recurrence (clinical attachment level [CAL] loss ≥2 mm). For patients in SPC of 5-20 years, prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5%-14%), while experiencing more than one site of CAL loss ≥2 mm was 24.8% (95% CI 11%-38%). Six studies informed on the effect of different methods of managing recurrence, with no clear evidence of superiority between methods. No data was found specifically for stage IV periodontitis. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of patients with stage III/IV periodontitis will experience tooth loss in long-term SPC (tendency for greater prevalence with time). Regular SPC appears to be important for reduction of tooth loss. No superior method to manage disease recurrence was found.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia in residents of nursing homes can be termed nursing home-acquired pneumonia (NHAP). NHAP is one of the most common infections identified in nursing home residents and has the highest mortality of any infection in this population. NHAP is associated with poor oral hygiene and may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might reduce the risk of NHAP. This is the first update of a review published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database and three trials registers up to 12 May 2022. We also used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (6244 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. Three studies were carried out in Japan, two in the USA, and one in France. The studies evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not include the results from one study (834 participants) because it had been stopped at interim analysis.  Consistent results from five studies, with 5018 participants, provided insufficient evidence of a difference between professional oral care and usual (simple, self-administered) oral care in the incidence of pneumonia. Three studies reported HRs, one reported IRRs, and one reported RRs. Due to the variation in study design and follow-up duration, we decided not to pool the data. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low: one level for study limitations (high risk of performance bias), and one level for imprecision. There was low-certainty evidence from meta-analysis of two individually randomised studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, 454 participants). Another study (2513 participants) reported insufficient evidence of a difference for this outcome at 18 months' follow-up. Three studies measured all-cause mortality and identified insufficient evidence of a difference between professional and usual oral care at 12 to 30 months' follow-up. Only one study (834 participants) measured the adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining. No studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although low-certainty evidence suggests that professional oral care may reduce mortality compared to usual care when measured at 24 months, the effect of professional oral care on preventing NHAP remains largely unclear. Low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of this intervention on incidence and number of first episodes of NHAP. Due to differences in study design, effect measures, follow-up duration, and composition of the interventions, we cannot determine the optimal oral care protocol from current evidence.  Future trials will require larger samples, robust methods that ensure low risk of bias, and more practicable interventions for nursing home residents.

Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis.  Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care.  We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.

Orofacial conditions and oral health behavior of young athletes: A comparison of amateur and competitive sports.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate oral health status (dental, periodontal, and functional) and oral health behavior in young German athletes including the comparison of competitive (CA) and amateur sports (AA). METHODS: Data of CA (German national teams, perspective, and youth squads) and AA aged between 18 and 30 years with an available oral examination in 2019 were included. CLINICAL EXAMINATION: caries experience (DMF-T), non-carious wear (erosion, BEWE), partially erupted wisdom teeth, gingival inflammation (PBI), plaque index, periodontal screening (PSI), and temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) screening. Questionnaires: oral health behavior and periodontal symptoms. RESULTS: 88 CA (w = 51%, 20.6 ± 3.5 years) of endurance sports and 57 AA (w = 51%, 22.2 ± 2.1 years) were included. DMF-T was comparable (CA: 2.7 ± 2.2, AA: 2.3 ± 2.2; p = 0.275) with more D-T in CA (0.6 ± 1.0) than AA (0.3 ± 0.7; p = 0.046; caries prevalence: CA: 34%, AA: 19%; p = 0.06). Both groups had low severity of erosion (BEWE about 3.5). CA had more positive TMD screenings (43% vs. 25%; p = 0.014). In both groups, all athletes showed signs of gingival inflammation, but on average of low severity (PBI <1). More CA needed complex periodontal treatment than AA (maximum PSI = 3 in 40% vs. 12%; p < 0.001). Oral health behavior was comparable (daily tooth brushing; regular dental check-ups in >70%). CONCLUSIONS: Young German athletes (CA and AA) generally showed signs of gingival inflammation and needed to improve their oral health behavior. CA showed slightly increased oral findings (more D-T, periodontal and TMD screening findings) than AA, but similar oral health behavior. This may imply an increased dental care need in competitive sports.

Endpoints of active periodontal therapy.

AIM: Position paper on endpoints of active periodontal therapy for designing treatment guidelines. The question was as follows: How are, for an individual patient, commonly applied periodontal probing measures-recorded after active periodontal therapy-related to (a) stability of clinical attachment level, (b) tooth survival, (c) need for re-treatment or (d) oral health-related quality of life. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily <1946 to 07 June 2019>. RESULTS: A total of 94 papers were retrieved. From the literature search, it was found that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of deep residual pockets after active periodontal therapy are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment level over a follow-up time of ≥1 year. Other supporting literature confirms this finding and additionally reports, at the patient level, that probing pocket depths ≥6 mm and bleeding on probing scores ≥30% are risks for tooth loss. There is lack of evidence that periodontal probing measures after completion of active periodontal treatment are tangible to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Based on literature and biological plausibility, it is reasonable to state that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of residual periodontal pockets and little inflammation are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment levels and less tooth loss over time. Guidelines for periodontal therapy should take into consideration (a) long-term tangible patient outcomes, (b) that shallow pockets (≤4 mm) without bleeding on probing in patients with <30% bleeding sites are the best guarantee for the patient for stability of his/her periodontal attachment, (c) patient heterogeneity and patient changes in immune response over time, and (d) that treatment strategies include lifestyle changes of the patient. Long-term large population-based and practice-based studies on the efficacy of periodontal therapies including both clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) need to be initiated, which include the understanding that periodontitis is a complex disease with variation of inflammatory responses due to environment, (epi)genetics, lifestyle and ageing. Involving people living with periodontitis as co-researchers in the design of these studies would also help to improve their relevance.

Development of a tool to assess oral health-related quality of life in patients hospitalised in critical care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Oral health deteriorates following hospitalisation in critical care units (CCU) but there are no validated measures to assess effects on oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL). The objectives of this study were (i) to develop a tool (CCU-OHQoL) to assess OHQoL amongst patients admitted to CCU, (ii) to collect data to analyse the validity, reliability and acceptability of the CCU-OHQoL tool and (iii) to investigate patient-reported outcome measures of OHQoL in patients hospitalised in a CCU. METHODS: The project included three phases: (1) the development of an initial questionnaire informed by a literature review and expert panel, (2) testing of the tool in CCU (n = 18) followed by semi-structured interviews to assess acceptability, face and content validity and (3) final tool modification and testing of CCU-OHQoL questionnaire to assess validity and reliability. RESULTS: The CCU-OHQoL showed good face and content validity and was quick to administer. Cronbach's alpha was 0.72 suggesting good internal consistency. For construct validity, the CCU-OHQoL was strongly and significantly correlated (correlation coefficients 0.71, 0.62 and 0.77, p < 0.01) with global OHQoL items. In the validation study, 37.8% of the participants reported a deterioration in self-reported oral health after CCU admission. Finally, 26.9% and 31% of the participants reported considerable negative impacts of oral health in their life overall and quality of life, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The new CCU-OHQoL tool may be of use in the assessment of oral health-related quality of life in CCU patients. Deterioration of OHQoL seems to be common in CCU patients.

WITHDRAWN: Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatment of destructive periodontal (gum) disease arrests the disease but does not usually regain the bone support or connective tissue lost in the disease process. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a surgical procedure that specifically aims to regenerate the periodontal tissues when the disease is advanced and could overcome some of the limitations of conventional therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of GTR in the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects measured against conventional surgery (open flap debridement (OFD)) and factors affecting outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2004. Handsearching included Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles up to April 2004. In addition, we contacted experts/groups/companies involved in surgical research to find other trials or unpublished material or to clarify ambiguous or missing data and posted requests for data on two periodontal electronic discussion groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 months duration comparing guided tissue regeneration (with or without graft materials) with open flap debridement for the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects. Furcation involvements and studies specifically treating aggressive periodontitis were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of possible studies and data extraction was conducted independently. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components and agreement determined by Kappa scores. Methodological quality was used in sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the conclusions. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as mean differences (MD and 95% CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR and 95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes calculated using random-effects models. Any heterogeneity was investigated. The primary outcome measure was change in clinical attachment. MAIN RESULTS: The search produced 626 titles, of these 596 were clearly not relevant to the review. The full text of 32 studies of possible relevance was obtained and 15 studies were excluded. Therefore 17 RCTs were included in this review, 16 studies testing GTR alone and two testing GTR + bone substitutes (one study had both test treatment arms).No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow up was not complete. For attachment level change, the mean difference between GTR and OFD was 1.22 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.80 to 1.64, Chi2 for heterogeneity 69.1 (df = 15), P < 0.001, I2 = 78%) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.61, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.01 (df = 1), P = 0.91). GTR showed a significant benefit when comparing the numbers of sites failing to gain 2 mm attachment with risk ratio 0.54 (95% CI Random Effects: 0.31 to 0.96, Chi2 for heterogeneity 8.9 (df = 5), P = 0.11). The number needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 33), based on an incidence of 28% of sites in the control group failing to gain 2 mm or more of attachment. For baseline incidences in the range of the control groups of 3% and 55% the NNTs are 71 and 4.Probing depth reduction was greater for GTR than OFD: 1.21 mm (95% CI 0.53 to 1.88, Chi2 for heterogeneity 62.9 (df = 10), P < 0.001, I2 = 84%) or GTR + bone substitutes, weighted mean difference 1.24 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.03 (df = 1), P = 0.85).For gingival recession, a statistically significant difference between GTR and open flap debridement controls was evident (mean difference 0.26 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.08, 0.43, Chi2 for heterogeneity 2.7 (df = 8), P = 0.95), with a greater change in recession from baseline for the control group.Regarding hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry, a statistically significant greater gain was found for GTR compared with open flap debridement. This amounted to a weighted mean difference of 1.39 mm (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.85 (df = 2), P = 0.65). For GTR + bone substitutes the difference was greater, with mean difference 3.37 mm (95% CI 3.14 to 3.61).Adverse effects were generally minor although with an increased treatment time for GTR. Exposure of the barrier membrane was frequently reported with a lack of evidence of an effect on healing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting.There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Mean annual attachment, bone level, and tooth loss: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rate of progression of periodontitis has been used to inform the design of classifications of periodontal diseases. However, the evidence underpinning this topic is unclear and no systematic review has yet been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The focused question for this systematic review was: in adults, what is the progression of periodontitis in terms of clinical attachment loss, radiographic bone loss, and tooth loss? DATA SOURCES: Highly sensitive electronic search was conducted for published data in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and unpublished grey literature in OpenGrey up to February 2016. Reference lists of retrieved studies for full-text screening and reviews were hand-searched for potentially eligible studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, longitudinal observational studies with follow-up of at least 12 months and presenting data on the primary outcome, change in clinical attachment level, in adults (age ≥18 years). Secondary outcomes, tooth loss and bone level change, were only assessed in studies reporting the primary outcome. Studies investigating specific disease populations or only on treated periodontitis patients were excluded. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Risk of bias and methodology were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with two additional questions on security of outcome assessment. Studies were pooled by abstracting or estimating mean annual attachment or bone level change and annual tooth loss. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted with investigation of effect of potential modifiers where possible. RESULTS: A total 11,482 records were screened for eligibility; 33 publications of 16 original studies reporting on more than 8,600 participants were finally included as eligible for the review. The studies represented populations from both developing and developed economies. Mean annual attachment loss was 0.1 mm per year (95% CI 0.068, 0.132; I2  = 99%) and mean annual tooth loss was 0.2 teeth per year (95% CI 0.10, 0.33; I2  = 94%). Observational analysis of highest and lowest mean attachment change quintiles suggested substantial differences between groups with minimal annual change in the lowest quintile and an average deterioration of 0.45 mm mean attachment loss per year in the highest group. This value increased to 0.6 mm per year with periodontitis alone. There was surprisingly little effect of age or gender on attachment level change. Geographic location, however, was associated with more than three times higher mean annual attachment loss in Sri Lanka and China (0.20 mm, 95% CI 0.15, 0.27; I2  = 83%) vs North America and Europe (0.056 mm, 95% CI 0.025, 0.087; I2  = 99%) P < 0.001. LIMITATIONS: There were a limited number of studies (N = 16), high variability of design in key study components (sampling frames, included ages, data analyses), and high statistical heterogeneity that could not be explained. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the research, the data show that mean annual attachment level change varies considerably both within and between populations. Overall, the evidence does not support or refute the differentiation between forms of periodontal diseases based upon progression of attachment level change.

Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

A new periodontitis classification scheme has been adopted, in which forms of the disease previously recognized as "chronic" or "aggressive" are now grouped under a single category ("periodontitis") and are further characterized based on a multi-dimensional staging and grading system. Staging is largely dependent upon the severity of disease at presentation as well as on the complexity of disease management, while grading provides supplemental information about biological features of the disease including a history-based analysis of the rate of periodontitis progression; assessment of the risk for further progression; analysis of possible poor outcomes of treatment; and assessment of the risk that the disease or its treatment may negatively affect the general health of the patient. Necrotizing periodontal diseases, whose characteristic clinical phenotype includes typical features (papilla necrosis, bleeding, and pain) and are associated with host immune response impairments, remain a distinct periodontitis category. Endodontic-periodontal lesions, defined by a pathological communication between the pulpal and periodontal tissues at a given tooth, occur in either an acute or a chronic form, and are classified according to signs and symptoms that have direct impact on their prognosis and treatment. Periodontal abscesses are defined as acute lesions characterized by localized accumulation of pus within the gingival wall of the periodontal pocket/sulcus, rapid tissue destruction and are associated with risk for systemic dissemination.

Oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia occurring in residents of long-term care facilities and nursing homes can be termed 'nursing home-acquired pneumonia' (NHAP). NHAP is the leading cause of mortality among residents. NHAP may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung, and by failure of the individual's defence mechanisms to eliminate the aspirated bacteria. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might be effective in reducing the risk of NHAP. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 November 2017) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to 15 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We also searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Sciencepaper Online to 20 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (3905 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. The studies all evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not pool the results from one study (N = 834 participants), which was stopped at interim analysis due to lack of a clear difference between groups.We were unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower incidence rate of NHAP compared with usual oral care over an 18-month period (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46; one study, 2513 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).We were also unable to determine whether professional oral care resulted in a lower number of first episodes of pneumonia compared with usual care over a 24-month period (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; one study, 366 participants analysed; low-quality evidence).There was low-quality evidence from two studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72, 507 participants analysed).We were uncertain whether or not professional oral care may reduce all-cause mortality compared to usual care, when measured at 24-month follow-up (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.15; one study, 141 participants analysed; very low-quality evidence).Only one study (834 participants randomised) measured adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining.No studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although low-quality evidence suggests that professional oral care could reduce mortality due to pneumonia in nursing home residents when compared to usual care, this finding must be considered with caution. Evidence for other outcomes is inconclusive. We found no high-quality evidence to determine which oral care measures are most effective for reducing nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Further trials are needed to draw reliable conclusions.

Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

INTERVAL (investigation of NICE technologies for enabling risk-variable-adjusted-length) dental recalls trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the best dental recall interval for optimum, cost-effective maintenance of oral health in dentate adults attending dental primary care.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group's systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. METHODS: This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95933794 (Date assigned 20/08/2008).