Heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on implant prosthodontic therapy is hindering comparative effectiveness research: meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Consistency in outcomes across clinical trials allows for comparing and combining results from different studies. A core outcome set (COS), representing a minimally agreed standardized group of outcomes that should be monitored and measured through research in a specific field of medicine, is not yet available for trials in implant prosthodontic (dental implant) therapy. This meta-research study aimed to analyze outcomes used in clinical trials on implant prosthodontic therapy. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) register to identify systematic reviews of interventions in implant prosthodontic therapy published by October 2023. From the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the relevant reviews, we extracted data on the characteristics of the included trials and the outcomes used. We categorized outcomes into domains. RESULTS: From 182 systematic reviews in the COHG register, we included 11 systematic reviews on dental implant therapy. The reviews included 117 unique RCTs with 4725 participants, published from 1995 to 2020, which analyzed 74 different outcomes. Using different definitions, implant failure was analyzed in 73 RCTs. Seventeen RCTs did not define implant failure. Failure was most often (30 RCTs) followed up for one year. Only one RCT assessed implant failure after five years. Trials used 17 definitions of implant failure, while 17 trials did not report on the criteria of implant failure. Complications were analyzed in 48 RCTs, although they were not clearly defined in 12 RCTs. Failure of prosthodontic supra-structure was analyzed in 74 RCTs, with definitions of failure and criteria not clearly defined in 44 RCTs. Trials considered adverse events, peri-implant tissue health, patient attitudes, and other outcomes, including cost, aesthetics, or procedure duration. These outcomes were often different between trials. Twenty-six outcomes were used only once per study. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials in implant prosthodontics used different outcomes, different definitions of outcomes and used different times to monitor them. Standardization of outcomes is necessary to allow comparability and evidence synthesis about the effectiveness of implant prosthodontic therapy.

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5). PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

WITHDRAWN: Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

BACKGROUND: Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life. Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone or toothbrushing and flossing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases, dental plaque and dental caries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 March 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 7 March 2013), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 7 March 2013), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 7 March 2013) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 7 March 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) for ongoing trials to 7 March 2013. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth design, cross-over and cluster-randomised trials) of dentate adult patients. The interventions were a combination of toothbrushing and any interdental brushing procedure compared with toothbrushing only or toothbrushing and flossing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes where different scales were used to assess an outcome. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information. MAIN RESULTS: There were seven studies (total 354 participants analysed) included in this review. We assessed one study as being low, three studies as being high and three studies as being at unclear risk of bias. Studies only reported the clinical outcome gingivitis and plaque data, with no studies providing data on many of the outcomes: periodontitis, caries, halitosis and quality of life. Three studies reported that no adverse events were observed or reported during the study. Two other studies provided some data on adverse events but we were unable to pool the data due to lack of detail. Two studies did not report whether adverse events occurred.Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing aloneOnly one high risk of bias study (62 participants in analysis) looked at this comparison and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis (0 to 4 scale, mean in control): mean difference (MD) 0.53 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.83) and plaque (0 to 5 scale): MD 0.95 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.34) at one month, favouring of use of interdental brushes. This represents a 34% reduction in gingivitis and a 32% reduction in plaque.Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing and flossingSeven studies provided data showing a reduction in gingivitis in favour of interdental brushing at one month: SMD -0.53 (95% CI -0.81 to -0.24, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence). This translates to a 52% reduction in gingivitis (Eastman Bleeding Index). Although a high effect size in the same direction was observed at three months (SMD -1.98, 95% CI -5.42 to 1.47, two studies, 107 participants, very low quality), the confidence interval was wide and did not exclude the possibility of no difference. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for reducing plaque (SMD at one month 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.33, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence) and insufficient evidence at three months (SMD -2.14, 95% CI -5.25 to 0.97, two studies, 107 participants very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study looked at whether toothbrushing with interdental brushing was better than toothbrushing alone, and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis and plaque at one month. There is also low-quality evidence from seven studies that interdental brushing reduces gingivitis when compared with flossing, but these results were only found at one month. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether interdental brushing reduced or increased levels of plaque when compared to flossing.

WITHDRAWN: Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

BACKGROUND: Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Knowledge and attitudes about sports-related dental injuries and mouthguard use in young athletes in four different contact sports-water polo, karate, taekwondo and handball.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The increasing popularity of participating in sports activities among children and adolescents has increased the risk of sports-related orofacial and dental injuries. Therefore, it is important to establish efficient preventive strategies regarding sports-related dental trauma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of sports-related dental injuries in young athletes and to compare the frequency of such injuries between high-risk and medium-risk sports, along with assessing athletes' attitudes and habits regarding mouthguard use. METHODS: A total of 229 young athletes from four different sports (water polo (n = 59), karate (n = 58), taekwondo (n = 57) and handball (n = 55)) participated in this study. A standardized questionnaire about the frequency of orofacial and dental injuries was used. Questions were also asked about athletes' habits related to mouthguard use. RESULTS: Mean age of the participants was 12.9 ± 3.2 years, and the average time of playing experience was 4.8 ± 3.1 years. Orofacial injury had been experienced by 58 athletes (25.3%), while 31 athletes (13.5%) suffered dental injury. Higher rate of dental injuries was observed in water polo (18.6%), karate (17.2%) and handball (21.8%) than in taekwondo (3.5%) (P = .035). Most participants were aware of mouthguards for dental trauma prevention and considered them efficient for preventing dental injuries during sports activities, but only 94 (41%) used them. There was a statistically significant difference in the use of mouthguards between taekwondo (73.7%) and karate (70.7%) players compared to handball (14.5%) and water polo players (5.1%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Handball and water polo had similarly high occurrence of dental trauma as karate, a high-risk martial art sport. Therefore, the classification of sports according to the risk of dental trauma should be reconsidered. It would be beneficial to make wearing a mouthguard mandatory in all high-risk sports, as well as in those with medium-risk for dental injuries.

Advanced Dental Materials: From Design to Application.

The title of this Special Issue is "Advanced Dental Materials: From Design to Application" [...].

The Influence of Contemporary Denture Base Fabrication Methods on Residual Monomer Content, Flexural Strength and Microhardness.

(1) Background: Digital technologies are available for denture base fabrication, but there is a lack of scientific data on the mechanical and chemical properties of the materials produced in this way. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the residual monomer content, flexural strength and microhardness of denture base materials as well as correlations between investigated parameters. (2) Methods: Seven denture base materials were used: one conventional heat cured polymethyl methacrylate, one polyamide, three subtractive manufactured materials and two additive manufactured materials. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to determine residual monomer content and the test was carried out in accordance with the specification ISO No. 20795-1:2013. Flexural strength was also determined according to the specification ISO No. 20795-1:2013. The Vickers method was used to investigate microhardness. A one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni post-hoc test was used for the statistical analysis. The Pearson correlation test was used for the correlation analysis. (3) Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the values of residual monomer content of the different denture base materials (p < 0.05). Anaxdent pink blank showed the highest value of 3.2% mass fraction, while Polident pink CAD-CAM showed the lowest value of 0.05% mass fraction. The difference between the flexural strength values of the different denture base materials was statistically significant (p < 0.05), with values ranging from 62.57 megapascals (MPa) to 103.33 MPa. The difference between the microhardness values for the different denture base materials was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and the values obtained ranged from 10.61 to 22.86 Vickers hardness number (VHN). A correlation was found between some results for the material properties investigated (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The selection of contemporary digital denture base manufacturing techniques may affect residual monomer content, flexural strength and microhardness but is not the only criterion for achieving favourable properties.

Increased prevalence of oral potentially malignant lesions among Croatian War invalids, a cross-sectional study.

Background: The main objective of this study was to investigate the frequency and type of oral pathological changes, oral subjective symptoms and the knowledge about oral cancer in the population of Croatian military invalids from the Homeland War. Material and Methods: A total of 102 Croatian military invalids from the Homeland War participated in the study. Data were collected on the presence of subjective symptoms in the oral cavity, and a detailed clinical examination of the oral mucosa was performed. Results: Almost half of the participants, 46 (45.1%), reported being smokers, and 64 (62.7%) consumed alcohol daily. Subjective symptoms in the oral cavity were reported by 25 (24.5%) of them. Pathological changes were found in 35 (34.3%) participants, of whom 14 (13.7%) had potentially malignant changes. Pathohistological findings confirmed the diagnosis of a potentially malignant lesion in 10 subjects and indicated the presence of moderate dysplasia in two, carcinoma in situ in one, and invasive carcinoma in one. Conclusions: Participants didn't show adequate knowledge of risk factors. Forty-one changes in the oral cavity were found in 35 subjects, and as many as 14 were potentially malignant. According to the participants, most dentists and family physicians don't thoroughly and regularly examine their patients' oral mucosa. Key words:Oral cancer, oral lichen planus, leukoplakia, erythroplakia, actinic cheilitis, Croatian Homeland War invalids.

Tensile Bond Strength between Different Denture Base Materials and Soft Denture Liners.

(1) Background: Various materials are available for CAD-CAM denture base fabrication, for both additive and subtractive manufacturing. However, little has been reported on bond strength to soft denture liners. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate tensile bond strength, comparing between different denture base materials and soft denture liners. (2) Methods: Seven different materials were used for denture base fabrication: one heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate, three materials for subtractive manufacturing, two materials for additive manufacturing and one polyamide. Two materials were used for soft denture lining: one silicone-based and one acrylate-based. The study was conducted according to the specification ISO No. 10139-2:2016, and the type of failure was determined. The Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's post hoc test was used to analyse the values of tensile bond strength, and Fisher's exact test was used to analyse the type of failure. p Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. (3) Results: The tensile bond strength values were not statistically significantly different combining all the materials used for denture base fabrication with the acrylate-based soft denture liner (p > 0.05), and the average values ranged between 0.19 and 0.25 Mpa. The tensile bond strength values of the different denture base materials and silicone-based denture liner were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05), and the average values ranged between 1.49 and 3.07 Mpa. The type of failure was predominantly adhesive between polyamide and both additive-manufactured denture base materials in combination with the acrylate-based soft liner (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The use of digital technologies in denture base fabrication can have an influence on different tensile bond strength values for soft denture liners, with different types of failure when compared with heat-cured PMMA. Similar tensile bond strength values were found between the acrylate-based soft denture liner and denture base materials. Significant differences in tensile bond strength values were found between the silicone-based soft denture liner and denture base materials, where the additive-manufactured and polyamide denture base materials showed lower values than heat-cured PMMA and subtractive-manufactured denture base materials.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

Background: Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Material and Methods: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Results: One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal. Conclusions: Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed. Key words:Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.

Development and Initial Validation of the Oral Health Activities Questionnaire.

Background: The purpose of this study was to introduce a new Oral Health Activities Questionnaire (OHAQ, hereinafter) that examines different activities and behaviours related to the oral hygiene regimen of each analysed subject. Methods: A sample of 658 students was analysed to determine the OHAQ scale's basic metric characteristics. To determine the construct validity of the OHAQ, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis, as well as differences testing, were applied to groups of subjects on the basis of self-reported oral status measures. Results: The dimensions of oral health activities were determined, and the scales for their measurement were constructed. Females and males differed in the OHAQ questionnaire measures. Significant but low intercorrelations were found among the measures. In the female and male subsample, four different oral health (OH, hereinafter) types of subjects were identified, exhibiting different characteristic behaviours regarding oral health. OHAQ scales showed good discriminant validity, revealing the differences related to specific self-reported oral status measures (e.g., frequency of toothache and the number of filled teeth). Conclusions: The OHAQ represents a satisfactory measurement instrument for determining the level of OH activities and for doing quick and reliable classifications of the participating subjects according to their OH activities and behaviours. The process of further validation and advancements of the OHAQ scales and measures should be continued through a clinical examination of subjects.

Knowledge and attitudes of Croatian Dentists Regarding Antibiotic Prescription in Endodontics: A Cross-sectional Questionnaire-based Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess dentists' level of knowledge and practice concerning antibiotic usage in endodontics using the European Society of Endodontology position statement as a reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the form of an electronic questionnaire consisting of 23 questions, including dentists' demographic and professional characteristics, attitudes as well as experiences regarding antibiotics in endodontics. Data were evaluated by the Mann-Whitney test or the Kruskal Wallis 1-way ANOVA, α = 5%. RESULTS: The overall mean self-reported knowledge of antibiotics usage in endodontics was 11.7±2.5 points, out of a maximum possible score of 23. The factors associated with a higher knowledge were: age (P≤0.001), clinical experience (P≤0.001), specialist training (P=0.008), and adherence to the guidance on the use of systemic antibiotics in endodontics (P=0.006). Dentists who specialized in endodontics (16.1±2.2) achieved higher levels of knowledge. CONCLUSION: Knowledge on antibiotic usage in endodontics among dentists in Croatia is insufficient. There is a need for continuing education on the use of antibiotics among general dentists.

Antimicrobial efficacy of commercially available endodontic bioceramic root canal sealers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a new generation of bioceramic root canal sealers has been introduced onto the market. Many in vitro studies have investigated the antimicrobial properties of these sealers, but their comparative efficacy in antimicrobial activity is still unknown. METHODOLOGY: Three electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE and Embase via the OvidSP platform, and Web of Science, up to June 25, 2019. Studies were included irrespective of study design, type of publication and language. Reporting quality was assessed by two authors independently. Meta-analysis was not performed due to studies being highly heterogeneous. RESULTS: We included 37 studies that analysed the antimicrobial effects of bioceramic sealers. Most of them used a planktonic cell model, with the exception of nine studies which used biofilms. It was not possible to make direct comparison of results from studies and to give a clear conclusion about the comparative antimicrobial activity of these materials because the studies used heterogeneous sources and ages of microorganisms, setting and contact times of sealers, and antimicrobial tests. Furthermore, some materials showed completely different results when tested with different methods. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, multiple in vitro studies have shown that bioceramic sealers may have various degrees of antimicrobial activity. However, it is still impossible to make conclusions about their comparative efficacy and to recommend the use of one over another in clinical practice because the studies available were conducted in different ways, which makes meta-analysis futile. A uniform methodological approach, consistent definitions and studies on humans are urgently needed in this field of research so that recommendations for practice can be made.