WITHDRAWN: Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment of root canals or root canal treatment is a frequently performed dental procedure and is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis (death) of the dental pulp (nerve). Removal of the necrotic tissue remnants and cleaning and shaping of the root canal are important phases of root canal treatment. Treatment options include the use of hand and rotary instruments and methods using ultrasonic or sonic equipment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic instrumentation alone or in conjunction with hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles in an attempt to locate additional published and unpublished trials. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted in December 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving people over 18 years of age with single and multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and with no evidence of internal resorption requiring root canal treatment were included. Patients undertaking re-treatment of a tooth were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently. Results were to be expressed as fixed-effect or random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review illustrates the current lack of published or ongoing randomised controlled trials and the unavailability of high level evidence, based on clinically relevant outcomes, for the effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation used alone or as an adjunct to hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment.Future randomised controlled trials might focus more closely on evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of these interventions with an emphasis on not only clinically relevant but also patient-centred outcomes.

Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries (tooth decay) is a common disease that is preventable by reducing the dietary intake of free sugars and using topical sodium fluoride products. An antibacterial agent known as chlorhexidine may also help prevent caries. A number of over-the-counter and professionally administered chlorhexidine-based preparations are available in a variety of formulations and in a range of strengths. Although previous reviews have concluded that some formulations of chlorhexidine may be effective in inhibiting the progression of established caries in children, there is currently a lack of evidence to either claim or refute a benefit for its use in preventing dental caries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chlorhexidine-containing oral products (toothpastes, mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, gums and sprays) on the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (25 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 25 February 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 25 February 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 25 February 2015). We handsearched several journals placed no language restrictions on our search. After duplicate citations were removed, the electronic searches retrieved 1075 references to studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the caries preventive effects of chlorhexidine gels, toothpastes, varnishes, mouthrinses, chewing gums or sprays with each other, placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents. We excluded trials with combined interventions of chlorhexidine and fluoride or comparisons between chlorhexidine and fluoride interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted trial data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We contacted trial authors for clarification or additional study details when necessary. The number of included studies that were suitable for meta-analysis was limited due to the clinical diversity of the included studies with respect to age, composition of intervention, and variation in outcome measures and follow-up. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analysis, we elected to present a narrative synthesis of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs that evaluated the effects of chlorhexidine varnishes (1%, 10% or 40% concentration) and chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) on the primary or permanent teeth, or both, of children from birth to 15 years of age at the start of the study. The studies randomised a total of 2876 participants, of whom 2276 (79%) were evaluated. We assessed six studies as being at high risk of bias overall and two studies as being at unclear risk of bias overall. Follow-up assessment ranged from 6 to 36 months.Six trials compared chlorhexidine varnish with placebo or no treatment. It was possible to pool the data from two trials in the permanent dentition (one study using 10% chlorhexidine and the other, 40%). This led to an increase in the DMFS increment in the varnish group of 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 1.53; two trials, 690 participants; very low quality evidence). Only one trial (10% concentration chlorhexidine varnish) provided usable data for elevated mutans streptococci levels > 4 with RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 496 participants; very low quality evidence). One trial measured adverse effects (for example, ulcers or tooth staining) and reported that there were none; another trial reported that no side effects of the treatment were noted. No trials reported on pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs.Two trials compared chlorhexidine gel (0.12% concentration) with no treatment in the primary dentition. The presence of new caries gave rise to a 95% confidence interval that was compatible with either an increase or a decrease in caries incidence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77; 487 participants; very low quality evidence). Similarly, data for the effects of chlorhexidine gel on the prevalence of mutans streptococci were inconclusive (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66; two trials, 490 participants; very low quality evidence). Both trials measured adverse effects and did not observe any. Neither of these trials reported on the other secondary outcomes such as measures of pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or direct and indirect costs of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence from the eight trials on varnishes and gels included in this review to either support or refute the assertion that chlorhexidine is more effective than placebo or no treatment in the prevention of caries or the reduction of mutans streptococci levels in children and adolescents. There were no trials on other products containing chlorhexidine such as sprays, toothpastes, chewing gums or mouthrinses. Further high quality research is required, in particular evaluating the effects on both the primary and permanent dentition and using other chlorhexidine-containing oral products.

Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment of root canals or root canal treatment is a frequently performed dental procedure and is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis (death) of the dental pulp (nerve). Removal of the necrotic tissue remnants and cleaning and shaping of the root canal are important phases of root canal treatment. Treatment options include the use of hand and rotary instruments and methods using ultrasonic or sonic equipment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic instrumentation alone or in conjunction with hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles in an attempt to locate additional published and unpublished trials. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted in December 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving people over 18 years of age with single and multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and with no evidence of internal resorption requiring root canal treatment were included. Patients undertaking re-treatment of a tooth were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently. Results were to be expressed as fixed-effect or random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review illustrates the current lack of published or ongoing randomised controlled trials and the unavailability of high level evidence, based on clinically relevant outcomes, for the effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation used alone or as an adjunct to hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment.Future randomised controlled trials might focus more closely on evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of these interventions with an emphasis on not only clinically relevant but also patient-centred outcomes.

How to deal with morning bad breath: A randomized, crossover clinical trial.

CONTEXT: The absence of a protocol for the treatment of halitosis has led us to compare mouthrinses with mechanical oral hygiene procedures for treating morning breath by employing a hand-held sulfide monitor. AIMS: To compare the efficacy of five modalities of treatment for controlling morning halitosis in subjects with no dental or periodontal disease. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This is a five-period, randomized, crossover clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty volunteers were randomly assigned to the trial. Testing involved the use of a conventional tongue scraper, a tongue scraper joined to the back of a toothbrush's head, two mouthrinses (0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride and 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate) and a soft-bristled toothbrush and fluoride toothpaste for practicing oral hygiene. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 17 for Windows and NCSS 2007 software (P < 0.05). The products and the periods were compared with each other using the Friedman's test. When significant differences (P < 0.05) were determined, the products and periods were compared in pairs by using the Wilcoxon's test and by adjusting the original significance level (0.05) for multiple comparisons by using the Bonferroni's method. RESULTS: The toothbrush's tongue scraper was able to significantly reduce bad breath for up to 2 h. Chlorhexidine reduced bad breath only at the end of the second hour, an effect that lasted for 3 h. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical tongue cleaning was able to immediately reduce bad breath for a short period, whereas chlorhexidine and mechanical oral hygiene reduced bad breath for longer periods, achieving the best results against morning breath.