Is Down syndrome a risk factor or contraindication for dental implants? A systematic review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Whether oral rehabilitation with dental implants in patients with Down syndrome leads to an increased complication rate is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dental implants placed in patients with Down syndrome and whether the condition is a risk factor or contraindication for dental implant placement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searches were conducted in 6 databases, including the non-peer-reviewed literature, up to February 2021 by 2 independent reviewers according to established inclusion and exclusion criteria to answer this question: Is Down syndrome a risk factor or contraindication for oral rehabilitation with dental implants? RESULTS: A total of 655 studies were initially found in the databases. Five were included in this systematic review, all of which were observational studies. A total of 50 patients with 186 implants were evaluated, with a reported effectiveness of 79.1%. The risk of bias assessment determined that 3 of the 5 studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with dental implants in patients with Down syndrome is a suitable option, but more complications are to be expected than with patients without this condition. Controlled studies with better methodological design and less risk of bias should be developed to improve the scientific evidence for the treatment of these patients.

Risk of bias assessment of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement in smokers: An umbrella systematic review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although dental implant treatment has a high success rate, patient-related factors may cause implant failure. In this context, smoking is associated with adverse effects on implant osseointegration. In spite of systematic reviews addressing this topic, the risk of bias in these reviews must be assessed to inform readers whether the studies were conducted with methodological rigor and whether their recommendations are viable in daily clinical practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this umbrella systematic review was to assess the risk of bias of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement in smokers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review articles with meta-analysis regarding dental implant placement in smokers were eligible for this study. The following were excluded: articles in which implant survival or failure rate was not the primary outcome; articles in which implant survival or failure rate was not related to smokers; and duplicated articles. The search was performed by 2 independent reviewers on MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, DARE-Cochrane, and SIGLE via OpenGrey. Non-peer-reviewed literature was sought on SIGLE via OpenGrey without language restrictions. Reviewers read titles and/or abstracts to select potential eligible studies, and articles initially selected were read fully. A third reviewer was consulted in cases of disagreement. References of the selected articles were also screened to identify articles of potential interest. The last search was performed on April 29, 2017. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. RESULTS: Of the initial 2539 results, 6 systematic reviews with meta-analysis were eligible for the umbrella review (kappa=0.90; very good agreement). All studies were published in the last 11 years. One meta-analysis (16.7%) presented low risk of bias, 3 (50.0%) were assessed as of unclear risk of bias, and 2 (33.3%) received a score of high risk of bias according to the assessment with the ROBIS tool, which also indicated that the criteria most commonly not met were study eligibility criteria and identification and selection of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Five of the 6 included meta-analyses had a risk of bias (high or unclear). Therefore, their conclusions and recommendations required careful review. Future meta-analyses must focus especially on study eligibility criteria and identification and selection of studies.

Is there a protocol in experimental skin wounds in rats using low-level diode laser therapy (LLDLT) combining or not red and infrared wavelengths? Systematic review.

A systematic review addressing experiments with healing of skin wounds in rats using LLDLT with different active means seeking to identify a pattern in adjustments such as laser wavelength, power and fluency and analysing wound healing parameters, such as wound area, presence of fibroblasts, angiogenesis, leukocyte infiltration, epithelial coverage and antibacterial effect. It was perceived that a protocol does not exist in view of the wide variation in the use of power (9 to 500 mW) and fluency (1 to 60 J/cm2); however, between the different wavelengths, the highlight was the combined use of red and infrared wavelengths showing better results than when used alone.

Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if the zirconia implants present better clinical results when compared to titanium implants. METHODS: Searches were conducted in 5 databases including, until March 2022, by 2 independent reviewers, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in the study and according whit this question: Do zirconia dental implants present better clinical results than titanium dental implants? RESULTS: 3235 studies were initially found in the researched databases. 03 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 71 patients with 192 implants (87 titanium and 105 zirconia) were evaluated, showing an effectiveness of 87,4% and 78,1% respectively and there was no statistically significant difference in terms of survival rate in the meta-analysis (P = 0.70; I2 = 0%). Still in the meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between titanium and zirconia implants in relation to the pink esthetich score or bleeding on probing, however, a favorable difference was observed for titanium in relation to marginal bone loss (P = 0.001; I2 = 0%). None of the studies evaluated had a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Oral rehabilitation with zirconia implants showed no advantages over titanium in this systematic review. However, the small number of studies included and the uncertain risk of bias may raise doubts in this interpretation and the results should be analyzed with caution. New studies with greater methodological rigor, follow-up time and number of interventions should be performed in order to safely determine the indication for the use of zirconia implants.

Effectiveness of palatally positioned implants in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae: a systematic review.

The purpose of this systematic review was to define the effectiveness of palatally positioned dental implants placed in atrophic maxillae. Searches were performed in five databases including the gray literature, up to August 2021, by 2 independent reviewers, in order to answer the following research question: Is the palatal approach technique effective in the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae? In the initial search, 1948 articles were found and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were selected, none of which was a randomized clinical trial. A total of 681 implants were placed, 549 of them with a palatal approach and 132 at the alveolar crest, with an effectiveness of 98.38% and 99.5%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. In assessing the risk of bias, only one of the studies had a low risk of bias. Implants installed with the palatal approach technique showed high effectiveness for rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla; however, few studies in the literature report this technique, requiring more controlled studies, and with less risk of bias, to confirm the results obtained in this systematic review.

Effectiveness of rhBMP-2 versus iliac autogenous bone graft in reconstructive surgery of cleft patients: an umbrella review.

The objective of this umbrella review was to determine the effectiveness of rhBMP-2 in the reconstructive surgery of cleft patients through an evaluation of bone filling and volume of newly formed bone in the cleft area. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) via Open Grey, until June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS tool. A total of 2739 articles were identified and, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, six were included for final evaluation. The bone filling rate was 74.23% in the rhBMP-2 group and 72.38% in the autogenous group. Regarding the risk of bias, none of the articles had a low risk, four had an uncertain risk, and two a high risk. The results of this umbrella review show that the studies had high and uncertain risks of bias, and high heterogeneity. There was a lack of evidence regarding the possible complications offered by this therapy. The recommendation to use BMP-2 for alveolar cleft reconstruction, especially in a paediatric population, should be viewed with caution. New primary studies are needed to assess this variable and safely determine the use of rhBMP-2 in reconstructive surgery for cleft patients.

Human anatomy education and management of anatomic specimens during and after COVID-19 pandemic: Ethical, legal and biosafety aspects.

COVID-19 is an infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, initially identified in the city of Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Since then, the virus has spread to the continents, causing a major pandemic. The impacts of this pandemic on the education of human anatomy interfere in at least two aspects: (1) receiving and managing anatomical specimens in anatomy laboratories and (2) adaptations for classes on remote virtual teaching. Therefore, this study reviewed and discussed the legal and bioethical aspects, considering the scenario of a South American Country, aiming to stimulate the debate on these two relevant themes in the international community. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impossibility of mass testing, anatomists and other workers in the field must deal with the risk of receiving bodies infected with SARS-CoV-2. In this situation, additional care measures in biosafety practices are essential to protect the staff. Such measures are: the bodies must be preserved by the perfusion of formaldehyde or other fixative solutions; embalming must be performed in ventilated rooms with a good air exhaust system; to avoid excessive manipulation of bodies and procedures such as pulmonary insufflation or craniotomy; and proper use of personal protective equipment, including lab coat, gloves and masks. As for exposure of body images in online classes, this review showed that there are no legal impediments to this end. However, anatomists must adopt measures aimed at protecting the memory of the deceased, such as using secure digital platforms with restricted access; family authorization/consent and student awareness.

Is there evidence that periodontal diseases are risk factors for coronary arterial disease?-Scoping review.

AIM: To determine the scientific evidence regarding the condition of periodontal diseases (PDs) as risk factors of coronary artery diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was performed through the selection of articles from online databases (Medline via PubMed, LILACS, and Cochrane CENTRAL), using a search algorithm and eligibility criteria for data extraction and data synthesis of included papers. Four hundred forty-one studies from online databases and 1364 from reference lists were initially identified, and 34 articles were selected for inclusion. Articles had to be published between 2015 and 2020 and had to associate PDs to coronary arterial diseases. All studies comprised a sample of 446443 participants. Favorable opinions totaled 70.59%, and the cross-sectional observational study design was more frequently found (32.35%). Biochemical outcomes were showed more frequently, such as inflammatory biomarkers (58.82%). Despite a large advantage for favorable opinions, a statistically significant result was not found when extracted data were combined with studies opinions. CONCLUSION: The evidence was classified as level II-3, hence, still distant from the best ranks and can therefore be considered as unclear. Moreover, studies with the higher potential to generate evidence showed a high risk of bias.

Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for oral mucositis prevention in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oral Mucositis is a frequent and debilitating inflammatory complication in patients with head and neck malignancies and may lead to unplanned treatment interruptions due to intense pain and dysphagia. This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in preventing oral mucositis in this context. The following databases were searched through September 2018, with last search performed on May 2019, for clinical trials: MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Lilacs, ISI Web of Science and SIGLE via Open Grey. From 14,525 records, 4 studies were included in the review and 3 studies were included in meta-analysis. Data from 500 patients (mean age of 53.595 and 54.14 for intervention and control groups, respectively) were analysed. Meta-analysis showed that laser therapy prevents oral mucositis incidence in 28% and 23% of cases during the third and fourth follow-up week, respectively, in comparison to a placebo-treated control group. There was no statistically significant difference the prevention of pain; dysphagia and quality of life were not analysed due to missing. Laser therapy was effective in preventing oral mucositis from the 15th to the 45th days of chemoradiotherapy. However, new primary studies with low risk of bias are needed so a higher scientific evidence can be obtained.

Effectiveness of combined regional-general anesthesia for reducing mortality in coronary artery bypass: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) has been used in association with general anesthesia (GA) for coronary artery bypass; however, anticoagulation during surgery makes us question the viability of benefits by the risk of epidural hematoma. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analyzes examining the efficacy of NA associated with GA compared to GA alone for coronary artery bypass on mortality reduction. METHODS: Mortality, arrhythmias, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), length of hospital stay (LHS), length of ICU stay (ICUS), reoperations, blood transfusion (BT), quality of life, satisfaction degree, and postoperative cognitive dysfunction were analyzed. The weighted mean difference (MD) was estimated for continuous variables, and relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) for categorical variables. RESULTS: 17 original articles analyzed. Meta-analysis of mortality (RD=-0.01, 95% CI=-0.03 to 0.01), CVA (RR=0.79, 95% CI=0.32-1.95), MI (RR=0.96, 95% CI=0.52-1.79) and LHS (MD=-1.94, 95% CI=-3.99 to 0.12) were not statistically significant. Arrhythmia was less frequent with NA (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.50-0.93). ICUS was lower in NA (MD=-2.09, 95% CI=-2.92 to -1.26). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in mortality. Combined NA and GA showed lower incidence of arrhythmias and lower ICUS.

Use alone or in Combination of Red and Infrared Laser in Skin Wounds.

A systematic review was conducted covering the action of red laser, infrared and combination of both, with emphasis on cutaneous wound therapy, showing the different settings on parameters such as fluency, power, energy density, time of application, frequency mode and even the type of low-power lasers and their wavelengths. It was observed that in general, the lasers brings good clinical and histological results mainly, but there is not a protocol that defines a dosage of use that has predictability of therapeutic success in repairing these wounds.