Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

Oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays for improving recovery following tonsillectomy.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2010 and previously updated in 2011.Tonsillectomy is the surgical removal of lymphoid tissue, the palatine tonsil, which is located at the back of the throat. It is still commonly performed for patients who have recurrent bouts of acute tonsillitis. Although tonsillectomy is considered a fairly minor procedure, pain and bleeding are two of the most common complications; either may delay recovery and can on occasion lead to hospital readmission. Postoperative tonsillectomy medication should provide an adequate reduction in morbidity while minimising side effects, therefore topical agents would seem to be an ideal, safe option. A number of mouthwashes and topical sprays are available which offer pain relief or can help to reduce bleeding in the immediate postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays in improving recovery following tonsillectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 4 July 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays, used pre- and postoperatively, have been compared with placebo in adults or children undergoing tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (593 participants; 397 children and 196 adults). The period of follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two weeks. Few of the trials provided reliable data for the pre-specified primary outcomes and none for the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was high in most of the included trials. Lidocaine spray appeared to be more effective than saline spray at reducing the severity of pain until the third postoperative day. A small number of participants experienced a burning or stinging sensation with benzydamine spray but not sufficient to discontinue usage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting quality and inadequate data did not permit comprehensive and reliable conclusions to be made. Future trials should be well-constructed and pay more attention to the methods used to assess outcomes, the timing of the assessments, and the quality of reporting and subsequent analysis of the data.

Irrigants for non-surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Root canal treatment is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis of the dental pulp. As a treatment option it is an alternative to dental extraction. Mechanical preparation and irrigation with antiseptic or antibacterial solutions destroys bacteria and cleans the infected root canal. Irrigants should be effective in deactivating bacteria in the entire root canal space without causing any adverse tissue reactions. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine are commonly used but there is uncertainty as to which solution, concentration or combination is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of irrigants used in the non-surgical root canal treatment of mature permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 July 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1950 to 5 July 2012), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 5 July 2012), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to 5 July 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in single or multi-rooted permanent teeth with pulpal or periapical pathology or both, which require root canal treatment. Irrigants either against each other or against inactive irrigant or placebo. Combinations of irrigants were allowed and if used in conjunction with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid) or similar chelating agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials involving 851 participants with 879 teeth which had undergone root canal treatment and involved the use of irrigants. Two trials were assessed as being at low risk of bias, with six unclear and three high. Four trials compared sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine, however, no primary outcomes and only one secondary outcome, bacterial growth cultures, was reported for two of these trials (20% and 50% of teeth in the control group had positive bacterial culture). The meta-analysis indicated no strong evidence of a difference in the existence of bacterial growth between the interventions (risk ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.56; P = 0.41). The seven remaining trials each compared different interventions and only two of these trials included useable data on the primary outcomes of swelling and pain. One trial compared sodium hypochlorite 5.25% alone versus sodium hypochlorite 5.25% combined with hydrogen peroxide 3%, and versus normal saline and reported pain at 3 to 14 days after the procedure. There was no evidence of a difference in pain between the three groups. The other trial compared sodium hypochlorite 5% versus sodium hypochlorite with 'proteolytic enzyme', and there was no evidence of a difference in swelling between the groups. Two further trials reported bacterial growth, and three trials failed to report any data which could be used in the review. None of the included trials reported any data on adverse effects nor radiological changes in periapical radiolucency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although root canal irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine appear to be effective at reducing bacterial cultures when compared to saline, most of the studies included in this review failed to adequately report these clinically important and potentially patient-relevant outcomes. There is currently insufficient reliable evidence showing the superiority of any one individual irrigant. The strength and reliability of the supporting evidence was variable and clinicians should be aware that changes in bacterial counts or pain in the early postoperative period may not be accurate indicators of long-term success. Future trials should report both clinician-relevant and patient-preferred outcomes at clearly defined perioperative, as well as long-term, time points.

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root filled teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment, involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth which may influence long term survival and cost. The comparative in service clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root filled teeth is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME and the reference lists of articles as well as ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Date of last search was 13 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth which have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration, as well as indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One trial judged to be at high risk of bias due to missing outcome data, was included. 117 participants with a root filled premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. At 3 years there was no reported difference between the non-catastrophic failure rates in both groups. Decementation of the post and marginal gap formation occurred in a small number of teeth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of conventional fillings over crowns for the restoration of root filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on how to restore root filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

Oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays for improving recovery following tonsillectomy.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2010.Tonsillectomy is the surgical removal of lymphoid tissue, the palatine tonsil, which is located at the back of the throat. It is still commonly performed for patients who have recurrent bouts of acute tonsillitis. Although tonsillectomy is considered a fairly minor procedure, pain and bleeding are two of the most common complications; either may delay recovery and can on occasion lead to hospital readmission. Postoperative tonsillectomy medication should provide an adequate reduction in morbidity while minimising side effects, therefore topical agents would seem to be an ideal, safe option. A number of mouthwashes and topical sprays are available which offer pain relief or can help to reduce bleeding in the immediate postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays in improving recovery following tonsillectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 22 April 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which mouthwashes, used pre- and postoperatively, have been compared with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (528 participants; 397 children and 131 adults). The period of follow up ranged from 24 hours to two weeks. Few of the trials provided reliable data for the pre-specified primary outcomes and none for the secondary outcomes. Lidocaine spray appeared to be more effective than saline spray at reducing the severity of pain but only until the third postoperative day. A small number of participants experienced a burning or stinging sensation with benzydamine spray but not sufficient to discontinue usage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The risk of bias was high in most of the included trials and poor reporting quality and inadequate data did not permit comprehensive and reliable conclusions to be made. Future trials should be well-constructed and pay more attention to the methods used to assess outcomes, the timing of the assessments, and the quality of reporting and subsequent analysis of the data.

A Rationally Designed Supercharged Protein-Enzyme Chimera Self-Assembles In Situ to Yield Bifunctional Composite Textiles.

Catalytically active materials for the enhancement of personalized protective equipment (PPE) could be advantageous to help alleviate threats posed by neurotoxic organophosphorus compounds (OPs). Accordingly, a chimeric protein comprised of a supercharged green fluorescent protein (scGFP) and phosphotriesterase from Agrobacterium radiobacter (arPTE) was designed to drive the polymer surfactant (S-)-mediated self-assembly of microclusters to produce robust, enzymatically active materials. The chimera scGFP-arPTE was structurally characterized via circular dichroism spectroscopy and synchrotron radiation small-angle X-ray scattering, and its biophysical properties were determined. Significantly, the chimera exhibited greater thermal stability than the native constituent proteins, as well as a higher catalytic turnover number (kcat). Furthermore, scGFP-arPTE was electrostatically complexed with monomeric S-, driving self-assembly into [scGFP-arPTE][S-] nanoclusters, which could be dehydrated and cross-linked to yield enzymatically active [scGFP-arPTE][S-] porous films with a high-order structure. Moreover, these clusters could self-assemble within cotton fibers to generate active composite textiles without the need for the pretreatment of the fabrics. Significantly, the resulting materials maintained the biophysical activities of both constituent proteins and displayed recyclable and persistent activity against the nerve agent simulant paraoxon.