Evidence-based clinical recommendations on the prescription of dietary fluoride supplements for caries prevention: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for the prescription of dietary fluoride supplements. The recommendations were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA). The panel addressed the following questions: when and for whom should fluoride supplements be prescribed, and what should be the recommended dosage schedule for dietary fluoride supplements? TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: A panel of experts convened by the ADA CSA, in collaboration with staff of the ADA Center for Evidence-based Dentistry, conducted a MEDLINE search to identify publications that addressed the research questions: systematic reviews as well as clinical studies published since the systematic reviews were conducted (June 1, 2006). RESULTS: The panel concluded that dietary fluoride supplements should be prescribed only for children who are at high risk of developing caries and whose primary source of drinking water is deficient in fluoride. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are a resource for practitioners to consider in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences. Providers should carefully monitor the patient's adherence to the fluoride dosing schedule to maximize the potential therapeutic benefit.

Low intensity permanent magnets in the treatment of chronic lumbar radicular pain.

We assessed the pain-relieving efficacy of static magnetic fields produced by 200 Gauss (G) magnets compared with 50G magnets in a double-blind, randomized, two-phase crossover study in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain. The surface field strengths of the magnets were 200 and 50G. Phase I included four random periods of two-week duration: two periods with 200G, one period with 50G, and one period of "no treatment." The magnets were positioned either vertically or horizontally in standard lumbosacral elastic corsets. Phase II consisted of two five-week periods with the most effective magnet from Phase I and its corresponding 50 or 200G device. The primary outcome was average daily leg pain score (0-10 scale) in each period of Phase II. Thirty-eight of 40 randomized patients completed Phase I, and 28 of 31 Phase II participants completed the study. In Phase I, pain scores did not differ significantly between 200 and 50G magnets. Phase II average leg pain scores tended to be lower with 200 vs. 50G magnets (3.2+/-2.1 for 200G vs. 3.9+/-2.2 for 50G magnets [P=0.08]) after excluding one unblinded patient. The relative treatment effect of the 200G magnets appeared to increase throughout the five-week period. Although these data cannot rule out a chance effect, the positive trends suggest that larger, longer-duration, sham-controlled trials with 200G magnets be considered in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain.

Pilot clinical trial of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) versus placebo for Sjögren's syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To screen for potential efficacy and assess feasibility and safety of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) as a treatment for Sjögren's syndrome (SS). METHODS: A 24-week randomized, double-blinded, pilot trial of oral DHEA (200 mg/day) versus placebo was conducted. The primary comparison was to a hypothesized 20% placebo response rate. If 14 consecutive subjects on DHEA did not respond, a Phase III trial would be considered futile. A placebo group of 14 subjects was planned to verify placebo response rate and estimate sample size required for a definitive trial. Response criteria required 20% improvement in at least 2 of 3 domains. Analysis of covariance was used to adjust for baseline differences and for stratified randomization. Outcome measures included visual analog scale questionnaires for dry eye and dry mouth symptoms, lissamine green ocular dye staining and Schirmer I tests, stimulated salivary flow, IgG, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). RESULTS: Randomization resulted in 14 DHEA and 14 placebo group subjects. At baseline, mean +/- SD for DHEA versus placebo groups were Schirmer I tests 4.5 +/- 4.5 versus 5.4 +/- 6.1 mm/5 minutes; Van Bijsterveld score 5.3 +/- 2.1 versus 5.5 +/- 2.2; unstimulated saliva 0.03 +/- 0.05 versus 0.04 +/- 0.10 ml/minute; IgG 1,699 +/- 749 versus 1,712 +/- 621 g/dl; and ESR 40 +/- 31 versus 44 +/- 28 mm/hour. Apart from changes over the trial in dry mouth symptoms, no significant differences were noted between the DHEA and placebo groups for dry eye symptoms, objective measures of ocular dryness, stimulated salivary flow; IgG, or ESR. Four DHEA and one placebo group patient dropped out because of adverse effects. Although 7 subjects met response criteria in the DHEA group, 5 met the criteria in the placebo group, and there was no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSION: DHEA showed no evidence of efficacy in SS. Without evidence for efficacy, patients with SS should avoid using unregulated DHEA supplements, since long-term adverse consequences of exposure to this hormone are unknown.