Assessing the reliability of automatic sentiment analysis tools on rating the sentiment of reviews of NHS dental practices in England.

BACKGROUND: Online reviews may act as a rich source of data to assess the quality of dental practices. Assessing the content and sentiment of reviews on a large scale is time consuming and expensive. Automation of the process of assigning sentiment to big data samples of reviews may allow for reviews to be used as Patient Reported Experience Measures for primary care dentistry. AIM: To assess the reliability of three different online sentiment analysis tools (Amazon Comprehend DetectSentiment API (ACDAPI), Google and Monkeylearn) at assessing the sentiment of reviews of dental practices working on National Health Service contracts in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A Python 3 script was used to mine 15800 reviews from 4803 unique dental practices on the NHS.uk websites between April 2018 -March 2019. A random sample of 270 reviews were rated by the three sentiment analysis tools. These reviews were rated by 3 blinded independent human reviewers and a pooled sentiment score was assigned. Kappa statistics and polychoric evalutaiton were used to assess the level of agreement. Disagreements between the automated and human reviewers were qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the sentiment assigned to reviews by the human reviews and ACDAPI (k = 0.660). The Google (k = 0.706) and Monkeylearn (k = 0.728) showed slightly better agreement at the expense of usability on a massive dataset. There were 33 disagreements in rating between ACDAPI and human reviewers, of which n = 16 were due to syntax errors, n = 10 were due to misappropriation of the strength of conflicting emotions and n = 7 were due to a lack of overtly emotive language in the text. CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between the sentiment of an online review assigned by a group of humans and by cloud-based sentiment analysis. This may allow the use of automated sentiment analysis for quality assessment of dental service provision in the NHS.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them. SEARCH METHODS: Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth.

BACKGROUND: In children, dental caries (tooth decay) is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament. Materials commonly used include mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), calcium hydroxide, formocresol or ferric sulphate.This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014 when insufficient evidence was found to clearly identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 August 2017) and the Web of Science (1945 to 10 August 2017). OpenGrey was searched for grey literature. 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions that combined a pulp treatment technique with a medicament or device in children with extensive decay in the dental pulp of their primary teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed 'Risk of bias'. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information when necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pair-wise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using I² coefficients. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 new trials bringing the total to 87 included trials (7140 randomised teeth) for this update. All were small, single-centre trials (median number of randomised teeth = 68). All trials were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias.The 87 trials examined 125 different comparisons: 75 comparisons of different medicaments or techniques for pulpotomy; 25 comparisons of different medicaments for pulpectomy; four comparisons of pulpotomy and pulpectomy; and 21 comparisons of different medicaments for direct pulp capping.The proportion of clinical failures and radiological failures was low in all trials. In many trials, there were either no clinical failures or no radiographic failures in either study arm.For pulpotomy, we assessed three comparisons as providing moderate-quality evidence. Compared with formocresol, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with a statistically significant difference at 12 months for clinical failure and at six, 12 and 24 months for radiological failure (12 trials, 740 participants). Compared with calcium hydroxide, MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures, with statistically significant differences for clinical failure at 12 and 24 months. MTA also appeared to reduce radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (four trials, 150 participants) (low-quality evidence). When comparing calcium hydroxide with formocresol, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of formocresol for clinical failure at six and 12 months and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months (six trials (one with no failures), 332 participants).Regarding pulpectomy, we found moderate-quality evidence for two comparisons. The comparison between Metapex and zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) paste was inconclusive, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions for failure at 6 or 12 months (two trials, 62 participants). Similarly inconclusive, there was no clear evidence of a difference in failure between Endoflas and ZOE (outcomes measured at 6 months; two trials, 80 participants). There was low-quality evidence of a difference in failure at 12 months that suggested ZOE paste may be better than Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) paste (two trials, 161 participants).Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low or very low for all comparisons. One trial appeared to favour formocresol over calcium hydroxide; however, there are safety concerns about formocresol. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth is generally successful. Many included trials had no clinical or radiological failures in either trial arm, and the overall proportion of failures was low. Any future trials in this area would require a very large sample size and follow up of a minimum of one year.The evidence suggests MTA may be the most efficacious medicament to heal the root pulp after pulpotomy of a deciduous tooth. As MTA is relatively expensive, future research could be undertaken to confirm if Biodentine, enamel matrix derivative, laser treatment or Ankaferd Blood Stopper are acceptable second choices, and whether, where none of these treatments can be used, application of sodium hypochlorite is the safest option. Formocresol, though effective, has known concerns about toxicity.Regarding pulpectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that one medicament or technique is superior to another, and so the choice of medicament remains at the clinician's discretion. Research could be undertaken to confirm if ZOE paste is more effective than Vitapex and to evaluate other alternatives.Regarding direct pulp capping, the small number of studies and low quality of the evidence limited interpretation. Formocresol may be more successful than calcium hydroxide; however, given its toxicity, any future research should focus on alternatives.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Salivary gland dysfunction is an 'umbrella' term for the presence of either xerostomia (subjective sensation of dryness), or salivary gland hypofunction (reduction in saliva production). It is a predictable side effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck region, and is associated with a significant impairment of quality of life. A wide range of pharmacological interventions, with varying mechanisms of action, have been used for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 14 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 September 2016); CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 14 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 14 September 2016); Zetoc Conference Proceedings (1993 to 14 September 2016); and OpenGrey (1997 to 14 September 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, irrespective of their language of publication or publication status. Trials included participants of all ages, ethnic origin and gender, scheduled to receive radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region. Participants could be outpatients or inpatients. We included trials comparing any pharmacological agent regimen, prescribed prophylactically for salivary gland dysfunction prior to or during radiotherapy, with placebo, no intervention or an alternative pharmacological intervention. Comparisons of radiation techniques were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 studies that randomised 3520 participants; the number of participants analysed varied by outcome and time point. The studies were ordered into 14 separate comparisons with meta-analysis only being possible in three of those.We found low-quality evidence to show that amifostine, when compared to a placebo or no treatment control, might reduce the risk of moderate to severe xerostomia (grade 2 or higher on a 0 to 4 scale) at the end of radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.67; P = 0.001, 3 studies, 119 participants), and up to three months after radiotherapy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92; P = 0.01, 5 studies, 687 participants), but there is insufficient evidence that the effect is sustained up to 12 months after radiotherapy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.23; P = 0.21, 7 studies, 682 participants). We found very low-quality evidence that amifostine increased unstimulated salivary flow rate up to 12 months after radiotherapy, both in terms of mg of saliva per 5 minutes (mean difference (MD) 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; P = 0.006, 1 study, 27 participants), and incidence of producing greater than 0.1 g of saliva over 5 minutes (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.86; P = 0.004, 1 study, 175 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to show a difference when looking at stimulated salivary flow rates. There was insufficient (very low-quality) evidence to show that amifostine compromised the effects of cancer treatment when looking at survival measures. There was some very low-quality evidence of a small benefit for amifostine in terms of quality of life (10-point scale) at 12 months after radiotherapy (MD 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.20; P = 0.006, 1 study, 180 participants), but insufficient evidence at the end of and up to three months postradiotherapy. A further study showed no evidence of a difference at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postradiotherapy. There was low-quality evidence that amifostine is associated with increases in: vomiting (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.87 to 8.38; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 601 participants); hypotension (RR 9.20, 95% CI 2.84 to 29.83; P = 0.0002, 3 studies, 376 participants); nausea (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.74; P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 556 participants); and allergic response (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.40 to 40.39; P = 0.02, 3 studies, 524 participants).We found insufficient evidence (that was of very low quality) to determine whether or not pilocarpine performed better or worse than a placebo or no treatment control for the outcomes: xerostomia, salivary flow rate, survival, and quality of life. There was some low-quality evidence that pilocarpine was associated with an increase in sweating (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.22; P = 0.004, 5 studies, 389 participants).We found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not palifermin performed better or worse than placebo for: xerostomia (low quality); survival (moderate quality); and any adverse effects.There was also insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the following interventions: biperiden plus pilocarpine, Chinese medicines, bethanechol, artificial saliva, selenium, antiseptic mouthrinse, antimicrobial lozenge, polaprezinc, azulene rinse, and Venalot Depot (coumarin plus troxerutin). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some low-quality evidence to suggest that amifostine prevents the feeling of dry mouth in people receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck (with or without chemotherapy) in the short- (end of radiotherapy) to medium-term (three months postradiotherapy). However, it is less clear whether or not this effect is sustained to 12 months postradiotherapy. The benefits of amifostine should be weighed against its high cost and side effects. There was insufficient evidence to show that any other intervention is beneficial.

Interventions for treating burning mouth syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a term used for oral mucosal pain (burning pain or discomfort in the tongue, lips or entire oral cavity) without identifiable cause. General population prevalence varies from 0.1% to 3.9%. Many BMS patients indicate anxiety, depression, personality disorders and impaired quality of life (QoL). This review updates the previous versions published in 2000 and 2005. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of any intervention versus placebo for symptom relief and changes in QoL, taste, and feeling of dryness in people with BMS. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 31 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 31 December 2015), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2015), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2015). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any treatment against placebo in people with BMS. The primary outcomes were symptom relief (pain/burning) and change in QoL. Secondary outcomes included change in taste, feeling of dryness, and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcome data were analysed as short-term (up to three months) or long-term (three to six months). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (1121 analysed participants; 83% female). Interventions were categorised as: antidepressants and antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, cholinergics, dietary supplements, electromagnetic radiation, physical barriers, psychological therapies, and topical treatments.Only one RCT was assessed at low risk of bias overall, four RCTs' risk of bias was unclear, and 18 studies were at high risk of bias. Overall quality of the evidence for effectiveness was very low for all interventions and all outcomes.Twenty-one RCTs assessed short-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of benefit from electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), topical benzodiazepines (two RCTs, 111 participants), physical barriers (one RCT, 50 participants), and anticonvulsants (one RCT, 100 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants, cholinergics, systemic benzodiazepines, dietary supplements or topical treatments. No RCT assessing psychological therapies evaluated short-term symptom relief.Four studies assessed long-term symptom relief. There is very low-quality evidence of a benefit from psychological therapies (one RCT, 30 participants), capsaicin oral rinse (topical treatment) (one RCT, 18 participants), and topical benzodiazepines (one RCT, 66 participants). We found no evidence of a difference for dietary supplements or lactoperoxidase oral rinse. No studies assessing antidepressants, anticonvulsants, cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation or physical barriers evaluated long-term symptom relief.Short-term change in QoL was assessed by seven studies (none long-term).The quality of evidence was very low. A benefit was found for electromagnetic radiation (one RCT, 58 participants), however findings were inconclusive for antidepressants, benzodiazepines, dietary supplements and physical barriers.Secondary outcomes (change in taste and feeling of dryness) were only assessed short-term, and the findings for both were also inconclusive.With regard to adverse effects, there is very low-quality evidence that antidepressants increase dizziness and drowsiness (one RCT, 37 participants), and that alpha lipoic acid increased headache (two RCTs, 118 participants) and gastrointestinal complaints (3 RCTs, 138 participants). We found insufficient/contradictory evidence regarding adverse events for anticonvulsants or benzodiazepines. Adverse events were poorly reported or unreported for cholinergics, electromagnetic radiation, and psychological therapies. No adverse events occurred from physical barriers or topical therapy use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given BMS' potentially disabling nature, the need to identify effective modes of treatment for sufferers is vital. Due to the limited number of clinical trials at low risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any interventions in managing BMS. Further clinical trials, with improved methodology and standardised outcome sets are required in order to establish which treatments are effective. Future studies are encouraged to assess the role of treatments used in other neuropathic pain conditions and psychological therapies in the treatment of BMS.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a side effect of chemotherapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and targeted therapy, affecting over 75% of high risk patients. Ulceration can lead to severe pain and difficulty eating and drinking, which may necessitate opioid analgesics, hospitalisation and nasogastric or intravenous nutrition. These complications may lead to interruptions or alterations to cancer therapy, which may reduce survival. There is also a risk of death from sepsis if pathogens enter the ulcers of immunocompromised patients. Ulcerative oral mucositis can be costly to healthcare systems, yet there are few preventive interventions proven to be beneficial. Oral cryotherapy is a low-cost, simple intervention which is unlikely to cause side-effects. It has shown promise in clinical trials and warrants an up-to-date Cochrane review to assess and summarise the international evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral cryotherapy for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer who are receiving treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 17 June 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 17 June 2015), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 17 June 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 17 June 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of oral cryotherapy in patients with cancer receiving treatment. We used outcomes from a published core outcome set registered on the COMET website. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of electronic searches, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for information where feasible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We pooled similar studies in random-effects meta-analyses. We reported adverse effects in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs analysing 1280 participants. The vast majority of participants did not receive radiotherapy to the head and neck, so this review primarily assesses prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. All studies were at high risk of bias. The following results are for the main comparison: oral cryotherapy versus control (standard care or no treatment). Adults receiving fluorouracil-based (5FU) chemotherapy for solid cancersOral cryotherapy probably reduces oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). In a population where 728 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 444 (95% CI 379 to 524). The number needed to treat to benefit one additional person (NNTB), i.e. to prevent them from developing oral mucositis, is 4 people (95% CI 3 to 5).The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.65, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 6).Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61, 5 studies, 444 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 300 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 120 (95% CI 81 to 183), NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). Adults receiving high-dose melphalan-based chemotherapy before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)Oral cryotherapy may reduce oral mucositis of any severity (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). Where 824 per 1000 would develop oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 486 (95% CI reduced to 289 to increased to 833). The NNTB is 3, although the uncertainty surrounding the effect estimate means that the 95% CI ranges from 2 NNTB, to 111 NNTH (number needed to treat in order to harm one additional person, i.e. for one additional person to develop oral mucositis).The results were similar for moderate to severe oral mucositis (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09, 5 studies, 270 analysed, low quality evidence). NNTB 3 (95% CI 2 NNTB to 17 NNTH).Severe oral mucositis is probably reduced (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.72, 5 studies, 270 analysed, moderate quality evidence). Where 427 per 1000 would develop severe oral mucositis, oral cryotherapy would reduce this to 162 (95% CI 85 to 308), NNTB 4 (95% CI 3 to 9).Oral cryotherapy was shown to be safe, with very low rates of minor adverse effects, such as headaches, chills, numbness/taste disturbance, and tooth pain. This appears to contribute to the high rates of compliance seen in the included studies.There was limited or no evidence on the secondary outcomes of this review, or on patients undergoing other chemotherapies, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, or on comparisons of oral cryotherapy with other interventions or different oral cryotherapy regimens. Therefore no further robust conclusions can be made. There was also no evidence on the effects of oral cryotherapy in children undergoing cancer treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are confident that oral cryotherapy leads to large reductions in oral mucositis of all severities in adults receiving 5FU for solid cancers. We are less confident in the ability of oral cryotherapy to reduce oral mucositis in adults receiving high-dose melphalan before HSCT. Evidence suggests that it does reduce oral mucositis in these adults, but we are less certain about the size of the reduction, which could be large or small. However, we are confident that there is an appreciable reduction in severe oral mucositis in these adults.This Cochrane review includes some very recent and currently unpublished data, and strengthens international guideline statements for adults receiving the above cancer treatments.

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth.

BACKGROUND: In children, dental caries is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide. Pulp interventions are indicated for extensive tooth decay. Depending on the severity of the disease, three pulp treatment techniques are available: direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy. After treatment, the cavity is filled with a medicament.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003. The previous review found insufficient evidence regarding the relative efficacy of these interventions, combining one pulp treatment technique and one medicament. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pulp treatment techniques and associated medicaments for the treatment of extensive decay in primary teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 25 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 25 October 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 25 October 2013) and the Web of Science (1945 to 25 October 2013). We searched OpenGrey for grey literature and the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing different pulp interventions combining a pulp treatment technique and a medicament in children with extensive decay involving dental pulp in primary teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We contacted authors of randomised controlled trials for additional information if necessary. The primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure, as defined in trials, at six, 12 and 24 months. We performed data synthesis with pairwise meta-analyses using fixed-effect models. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using by I(2) coefficients. MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 trials (3910 randomised teeth) compared to three trials in the previous version of the review published in 2003. All trials were single centre and small sized (median number of randomised teeth 68). Overall, the risk of bias was low in only one trial with all other trials being at unclear or high risk of bias. The overall quality of the evidence was low. The 47 trials examined 53 different comparisons: 25 comparisons between different medicaments/techniques for pulpotomy, 13 comparisons between different medicaments for pulpectomy, 13 comparisons between different medicaments for direct pulp capping and two comparisons between pulpotomy and pulpectomy. Regarding pulpotomy, 14 trials compared mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) with formocresol (FC). MTA reduced both clinical and radiological failures at six, 12 and 24 months, although the difference was not statistically significant. MTA also showed favourable results for all secondary outcomes measured, although again, differences between MTA and FC were not statistically significant (with the exception of pathological root resorption at 24 months and dentine bridge formation at six months). MTA showed favourable results compared with calcium hydroxide (CH) (two trials) for all outcomes measured, but the differences were not statistically significant (with the exception of radiological failure at 12 months). When comparing MTA with ferric sulphate (FS) (three trials), MTA had statistically significantly fewer clinical, radiological and overall failures at 24 months. This difference was not shown at six or 12 months.FC was compared with CH in seven trials and with FS in seven trials. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of FC for clinical failure at six and 12 months, and radiological failure at six, 12 and 24 months. FC also showed favourable results for all secondary outcomes measured, although differences between FC and CH were not consistently statistically significant across time points. The comparisons between FC and FS showed no statistically significantly difference between the two medicaments for any outcome at any time point.For all other comparisons of medicaments used during pulpotomies, pulpectomies or direct pulp capping, the small numbers of studies and the inconsistency in results limits any interpretation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to identify one superior pulpotomy medicament and technique clearly. Two medicaments may be preferable: MTA or FS. The cost of MTA may preclude its clinical use and therefore FS could be used in such situations. Regarding other comparisons for pulpectomies or direct pulp capping, the small numbers of studies undertaking the same comparison limits any interpretation.

Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is the most frequent form of oral ulceration, characterised by recurrent oral mucosal ulceration in an otherwise healthy individual. At its worst RAS can cause significant difficulties in eating and drinking. Treatment is primarily aimed at pain relief and the promotion of healing to reduce the duration of the disease or reduce the rate of recurrence. A variety of topical and systemic therapies have been utilised. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effect of systemic interventions in the reduction of pain associated with RAS, a reduction in episode duration or frequency. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches of: Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 6 June 2012); CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 4, 2012); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 6 June 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 6 June 2012); CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 6 June 2012); and AMED via PubMed (1950 to 6 June 2012). We searched reference lists from relevant articles and contacted the authors of eligible trials to identify further trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the primary outcome measures assess a reduction of pain associated with RAS, a reduction in episode duration or a reduction in episode frequency. Trials were not restricted by outcome alone. We also included RCTs of a cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data in duplicate. We contacted trial authors for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. We carried out risk of bias assessment on six domains. We followed The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines and risk ratio (RR) values were to be calculated using fixed-effect models (if two or three trials in each meta-analysis) or random-effects models (if four or more trials in each meta-analysis). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 25 trials were included, 22 of which were placebo controlled and eight made head-to-head comparisons (five trials had more than two treatment arms). Twenty-one different interventions were assessed. The interventions were grouped into two categories: immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory and uncertain. Only one study was assessed as being at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No single treatment was found to be effective and therefore the results remain inconclusive in regard to the best systemic intervention for RAS. This is likely to reflect the poor methodological rigour of trials, and lack of studies for certain drugs, rather than the true effect of the intervention. It is also recognised that in clinical practice, individual drugs appear to work for individual patients and so the interventions are likely to be complex in nature. In addition, it is acknowledged that systemic interventions are often reserved for those patients who have been unresponsive to topical treatments, and therefore may represent a select group of patients.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Stabilization splint therapy for the treatment of temporomandibular myofascial pain: a systematic review.

The aim of this review is to establish the effectiveness of stabilization splint (SS) therapy in reducing symptoms in patients with myofascial pain. Searching of electronic databases, handsearching of relevant key journals, and screening of reference lists of included studies were undertaken. There was no language restriction, and unpublished research was sought. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing splint therapy to either no treatment or another active treatment. Data extraction and validity assessment were carried out independently and in duplicate. Studies were grouped according to treatment type. Twenty potentially relevant Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were identified. Only twelve met the inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence either for or against the use of stabilization splint therapy over other active interventions for the treatment of temporomandibular myofascial pain. However, it appears that stabilization splint therapy may be beneficial for reducing pain severity at rest and on palpation and depression when compared to no treatment. The authors suggested the need for well conducted RCTs that pay attention to method of allocation, blind outcome assessment, sample size, and duration of follow-up. Various measures were adopted to assess the outcomes of treatment. Standardization of the methods used to measure outcomes of the treatment of myofascial pain should be established in future RCTs.