Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.

Autism and primary care dentistry: parents' experiences of taking children with autism or working diagnosis of autism for dental examinations.

BACKGROUND: Accessing and receiving preventative dental treatment can be difficult for children with autism due to sensory processing disorders and/or challenging behaviours coupled with a reported reluctance by dentists to treat these children. AIM: To gather dental experiences of UK parents of children with autism or working diagnosis of autism and explore how they feel primary care dental services can be improved. DESIGN: A total of 17 parents of children with a diagnosis or working diagnosis of autism took part in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Key themes identified were flexibility of the dental team and environment, confidence of the parents to advocate for their children's needs, continuity of services and clear referral pathways to specialist services. Cross-cutting all themes was the value of clear communication. The experiences provide greater understanding of issues such as hyper-empathy, the dental chair, challenges of the waiting room, perceived medical authority, and the importance of continuation of care. CONCLUSION: In line with previous research about the importance of family-centred care, a strong relationship between parents and the whole dental team is essential for children with autism to access dental examinations and have satisfactory experience of care.

The Soothing Sea: A Virtual Coastal Walk Can Reduce Experienced and Recollected Pain.

Virtual reality (VR) distraction has become increasingly available in health care contexts and is used in acute pain management. However, there has been no systematic exploration of the importance of the content of VR environments. Two studies tested how interacting with nature VR influenced experienced and recollected pain after 1 week. Study 1 (n = 85) used a laboratory pain task (cold pressor), whereas Study 2 (n = 70) was a randomized controlled trial with patients undergoing dental treatment. In Study 1, nature (coastal) VR reduced both experienced and recollected pain compared with no VR. In Study 2, nature (coastal) VR reduced experienced and recalled pain in dental patients, compared with urban VR and standard care. Together, these data show that nature can improve experience of health care procedures through the use of VR, and that the content of the VR matters: Coastal nature is better than urban.

WITHDRAWN: Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Managing children is a challenge that many dentists face. Many non-pharmacological techniques have been developed to manage anxiety and behavioural problems in children, such us: 'tell, show & do', positive reinforcement, modelling and hypnosis. The use of hypnosis is generally an overlooked area, hence the need for this review. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review attempted to answer the question: What is the effectiveness of hypnosis (with or without sedation) for behaviour management of children who are receiving dental care in order to allow successful completion of treatment?Null hypothesis: Hypnosis has no effect on the outcome of dental treatment of children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO. Electronic and manual searches were performed using controlled vocabulary and free text terms with no language restrictions. Date of last search: 11th June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: All children and adolescents aged up to 16 years of age. Children having any dental treatment, such as: simple restorative treatment with or without local anaesthetic, simple extractions or management of dental trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2. MAIN RESULTS: Only three RCTs (with 69 participants) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were not possible due to insufficient number of studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there are a considerable number of anecdotal accounts indicating the benefits of using hypnosis in paediatric dentistry, on the basis of the three studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review there is not yet enough evidence to suggest its beneficial effects.

WITHDRAWN: Occlusal interventions for periodontitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Occlusal interventions may be used in adults with periodontitis. At present there is little consensus regarding the indications and effectiveness of occlusal interventions in periodontal patients. OBJECTIVES: To identify and analyse the evidence for the effect of occlusal interventions on adults who have periodontitis in relation to tooth loss, probing depths, clinical attachment level, adverse effects and patient-centred outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: The search was last conducted in April 2008. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 30th April 2008); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1966 to 30th April 2008); and EMBASE (1980 to 30th April 2008). There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing occlusal interventions in patients with periodontitis with a follow up of at least 3 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Any disagreements between the review authors were resolved by discussion. The main investigator of the included trial was contacted to obtain missing information. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: Abstracts of 54 papers were identified by the search. One paper was eligible for inclusion. This paper studied the effect of occlusal adjustment against no occlusal adjustment in patients who were treated with non-surgical and surgical periodontal therapy. Methodological quality assessment of the included paper revealed that randomisation of the patients into the treatment groups was adequate. Allocation concealment, masking of patients and clinicians were not reported and no response to author contact was received.Mean change in attachment level and mean pocket depth were reported in the included trial. Mean difference in clinical attachment level between occlusal intervention and control in the non-surgical group amounted to 0.38 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.72) favouring the occlusal intervention group and was statistically significant. In the surgical group the mean difference in clinical attachment level between occlusal intervention and control amounted to 0.40 mm (95% CI 0.05 to 0.75) favouring the occlusal intervention group and was also statistically significant. The difference in mean pocket depth reduction between the occlusal intervention and control in both the surgical and non-surgical groups was less than 0.1 mm and was not statistically significant. Tooth loss, patient-centred affects and adverse effects were not reported. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the inclusion of only one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only one randomised trial that has addressed this question. The data from this study are inconclusive. We therefore conclude there is no evidence for or against the use of occlusal interventions in clinical practice. This question can only be addressed by adequately powered bias-protected randomised controlled trials.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.We checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.Three trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.Three of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.Four of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015. OBJECTIVES: We will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.Morbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings. MAIN RESULTS: In our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.

Treatment of periodontal disease for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is a key issue in the care of people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Periodontal disease is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontal disease. This review updates the previous version published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to investigate the effect of periodontal therapy on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 31 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 31 December 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 31 December 2014), and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 31 December 2014). ZETOC (1993 to 31 December 2014) and Web of Knowledge (1990 to 31 December 2014) were searched for conference proceedings. Additionally, two periodontology journals were handsearched for completeness, Annals of Periodontology (1996 to 2003) and Periodontology 2000 (1993 to 2003). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO 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 searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 DM (T1DM/T2DM) with a diagnosis of periodontitis. Interventions included periodontal treatments such as mechanical debridement, surgical treatment and antimicrobial therapy. Two broad comparisons were proposed:1. periodontal therapy versus no active intervention/usual care;2. periodontal therapy versus alternative periodontal therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this review update, at least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials and assessed included trials for risk of bias.Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c).Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI) and probing pocket depth (PPD)), cost implications and diabetic complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies (including seven from the previous version of the review), which included 2565 participants in total. All studies used a parallel RCT design, and 33 studies (94%) only targeted T2DM patients. There was variation between studies with regards to included age groups (ages 18 to 80), duration of follow-up (3 to 12 months), use of antidiabetic therapy, and included participants' baseline HbA1c levels (from 5.5% to 13.1%).We assessed 29 studies (83%) as being at high risk of bias, two studies (6%) as being at low risk of bias, and four studies (11%) as unclear. Thirty-four of the studies provided data suitable for analysis under one or both of the two comparisons.Comparison 1: low quality evidence from 14 studies (1499 participants) comparing periodontal therapy with no active intervention/usual care demonstrated that mean HbA1c was 0.29% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48% to 0.10% lower) 3 to 4 months post-treatment, and 0.02% lower after 6 months (five studies, 826 participants; 95% CI 0.20% lower to 0.16% higher).Comparison 2: 21 studies (920 participants) compared different periodontal therapies with each other. There was only very low quality evidence for the multiple head-to-head comparisons, the majority of which were unsuitable to be pooled, and provided no clear evidence of a benefit for one periodontal intervention over another. We were able to pool the specific comparison between scaling and root planing (SRP) plus antimicrobial versus SRP and there was no consistent evidence that the addition of antimicrobials to SRP was of any benefit to delivering SRP alone (mean HbA1c 0.00% lower: 12 studies, 450 participants; 95% CI 0.22% lower to 0.22% higher) at 3-4 months post-treatment, or after 6 months (mean HbA1c 0.04% lower: five studies, 206 patients; 95% CI 0.41% lower to 0.32% higher).Less than half of the studies measured adverse effects. The evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any of the treatments were associated with harm. No other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were measured by the included studies, and neither were cost implications or diabetic complications.Studies showed varying degrees of success with regards to achieving periodontal health, with some showing high levels of residual inflammation following treatment. Statistically significant improvements were shown for all periodontal indices (BOP, CAL, GI, PI and PPD) at 3-4 and 6 months in comparison 1; however, this was less clear for individual comparisons within the broad category of comparison 2. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that the treatment of periodontal disease by SRP does improve glycaemic control in people with diabetes, with a mean percentage reduction in HbA1c of 0.29% at 3-4 months; however, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is maintained after 4 months.There was no evidence to support that one periodontal therapy was more effective than another in improving glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.In clinical practice, ongoing professional periodontal treatment will be required to maintain clinical improvements beyond 6 months. Further research is required to determine whether adjunctive drug therapies should be used with periodontal treatment. Future RCTs should evaluate this, provide longer follow-up periods, and consider the inclusion of a third 'no treatment' control arm.Larger, well conducted and clearly reported studies are needed in order to understand the potential of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control among people with diabetes mellitus. In addition, it will be important in future studies that the intervention is effective in reducing periodontal inflammation and maintaining it at lowered levels throughout the period of observation.

The dental development in patients with Aperts syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify the level of dental developmental delay in a group of patients with Aperts syndrome when compared to matched controls. METHODS: Twenty-six Dental Panoramic Tomographic (DPT) radiographs of patients with Apert syndrome attending Great Ormond Street Hospital were compared to controls (n = 29) from the Eastman Dental Hospital, UK. Dental development was assessed using the staging systems of Demirjian and Haavikko, and dental age (DA) was estimated using the weighted averages method. RESULTS: Dental age, as estimated using the 12 stages of Haavikko and eight stages of Demirjian, suggested no statistical evidence of developmental delay between the Aperts and control group. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis 'that there is no difference in the dental development of subjects with Apert syndrome, when compared to a group of matched controls', was accepted.

Patient-centred care in general dental practice--a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Delivering improvements in quality is a key objective within most healthcare systems, and a view which has been widely embraced within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Within the NHS, quality is evaluated across three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, with the latter modelled on the Picker Principles of Patient-Centred Care (PCC). Quality improvement is an important feature of the current dental contract reforms in England, with "patient experience" likely to have a central role in the evaluation of quality. An understanding and appreciation of the evidence underpinning PCC within dentistry is highly relevant if we are to use this as a measure of quality in general dental practice. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the features of PCC relevant to dentistry and ascertain the current research evidence base underpinning its use as a measure of quality within general dental practice. RESULTS: Three papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria and demonstrated the use of primary research to provide an understanding of the key features of PCC within dentistry. None of the papers identified were based in general dental practice and none of the three studies sought the views of patients. Some distinct differences were noted between the key features of PCC reported within the dental literature and those developed within the NHS Patient Experience Framework. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals a lack of understanding of PCC within dentistry, and in particular general dental practice. There is currently a poor evidence base to support the use of the current patient reported outcome measures as indicators of patient-centredness. Further research is necessary to understand the important features of PCC in dentistry and patients' views should be central to this research.

Human herpesvirus 8 shedding in the mouth and blood of hemodialysis patients.

In Saudi Arabia, the prevalence of transplantation-associated Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is high, and there is disparity in the prevalence rates of human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) infection between patients with renal disease and the general population. It was hypothesized that oral HHV-8 transmission among patients undergoing hemodialysis treatment contributes to the high prevalence of infection in renal disease patients. The detection rates of anti-HHV8-IgG in plasma and HHV-8-DNA in CD45(+)-peripheral blood cells of 72 hemodialysis patients were compared first with those of 178 blood donors and 60 pregnant women. Between the hemodialysis patients and the apparently healthy people sampled, the detection rate of anti-HHV-8-IgG was 16.7% versus 0.4% (P < 0.001) and that of HHV-8-DNA was 4.2% versus 0.4%, (P < 0.05). HHV-8 DNA was determined in oral samples and the HHV-8 viral load measured in saliva of patients undergoing hemodialysis. The amount of virus shed into saliva ranged between 8,600 and 119,562,500 (mean: 24,009,360) genome-equivalents/ml among the five patients in whom oral HHV-8 DNA was detected. Finally, HHV-8-subgenomic sequencing was conducted which showed that orally shed HHV-8 in four patients belonged to genotype C2, and in one patient to genotypes A1 and C2. HHV-8 shed in the mouth of hemodialysis patients may be extensive and diverse. Oral fluid in addition to blood is thus a likely vehicle for transmission of HHV-8, possibly contributing to the high risk of HHV-8 infection in patients undergoing hemodialysis and to KS following immunosuppression after renal transplantation.

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment in under 18 year olds.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed in children by the use of a general anaesthetic, however use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review is to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for children and adolescents aged under 18 years.This review was originally published in 2009 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the intra- and postoperative morbidity, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for under 18 year olds. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to July 2012); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to July 2012); System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October 2008), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2012), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2008). The searches were updated to July 2012. The original search was performed in October 2008.We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2012. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials of sedative agents compared to general anaesthesia in children and adolescents aged up to 18 years having dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to the objectives and outcome measures in a specially designed 'data extraction form'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies for potential inclusion after searching the available databases and screening the titles and abstracts. We identified a further study through personal contacts. Following full text retrieval of the studies, we found none to be eligible for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies are required comparing the use of dental general anaesthesia with sedation to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to children needing dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort. In addition it might also reduce intraoperative pain. Reviewing the available evidence will determine whether further research is warranted and will inform the development of prescribing guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 8 March 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 March 2012), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 8 March 2012) and the ISI Web of Knowledge (1945 to 8 March 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.The reference lists of all eligible trials were checked for additional studies. Specialists in the field were contacted for any unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents aged up to 17 years. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility and undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials met the review's inclusion criteria with 190 participants in total. Three trials were dentally related i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. None of the included trials were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). The meta-analysis of the two trials showed a nonsignificant risk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain-related behaviours of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in placebo versus 42% in test group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, the other at high risk. Four trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. Data from two trials, including patients who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, were pooled to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant benefit, with regard to severity of postoperative pain, for giving ibuprofen preoperatively with mean difference -19.12 (95% CI -29.36 to -8.87; P = 0.0003; moderate quality evidence) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100) indicating a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both these trials were at high risk of bias. Adverse events were only reported in one trial (one patient from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in prescribing preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement.

Motivation for orthodontic treatment investigated with Q-methodology: patients' and parents' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Motivation and cooperation are vital components of orthodontic treatment if a good outcome is to be achieved. In this study, we used Q-methodology to investigate motivating factors among adolescents seeking orthodontic treatment and parents wanting their children to undergo orthodontic treatment. This technique asks participants to rank a series of statements, and the analysis of this ranking then provides insight into the participants' opinions. METHODS: Each of these complementary studies was divided into 2 phases: interviews to generate a list of reasons for seeking orthodontic treatment and the use of Q-methodology to assess and categorize the relative importance of these reasons for the groups of participants. In the patient study, 32 items were generated from the interviews and placed in order of importance on a Q-methodology grid by 60 patients who were about to commence orthodontic treatment. The rankings were subjected to factor analysis, which categorized the patients' views into groups of shared opinions. The same methodology was used with the parent group, and a Q-methodology grid was designed to accommodate 35 items that were then ranked by the 60 parents. The rankings were subjected to factor analysis as for the patient group. RESULTS: For the patients, factor analysis identified 3 factors, all of which included esthetics, as important. The remaining respondents had more individual viewpoints and did not map to any of the 3 factors. For the parents, factor analysis identified 4 factors, all of which included treatment in adolescence to prevent future problems, as important. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that Q-methodology is a novel and efficient tool that can be used in dental research with few difficulties. It might prove useful for the aspects of care for which subjective views or opinions play an important role.

Radiographic study of delayed tooth development in patients with dental agenesis.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to compare the radiographic development of permanent teeth in a group of children affected by dental agenesis with an unaffected control group and to determine the effects of confounding factors including the severity of the dental agenesis, age, sex, ethnicity, and the number of stages used to estimate dental age. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cross-sectional study of dental panoramic tomographs was undertaken between July 2007 and April 2008 in a postgraduate teaching school. A total of 139 patients (aged 9-18 years) were recruited from the orthodontic clinic on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria to either a dental agenesis group or a control group. Dental panoramic tomograms were assessed, and the stages of development of the permanent teeth in the left maxillary and left mandibular regions were scored by using the 12 stages of Haavikko and the 8 stages of Demirjian and Goldstein. For each tooth scored, the mean dental age and standard error were determined by using the dental age assessment method, and an estimated dental age for each subject was derived by using the weighted average method. RESULTS: A statistically significant delay in dental age was found in the patients with dental agenesis compared with the control group. The dental age assessment method of Haavikko showed a delay of 1.20 years (SD, 1.74), and the method of Demirjian and Goldstein showed a delay of 1.64 years (SD, 1.75). It was also observed that older patients with dental agenesis had greater delays in tooth formation (P <0.001). With the Haavikko method, for every year of chronologic age, the delay in dental age increased by 0.53 year; with the Demirjian and Goldstein method, the delay increased by 0.48 year. A significant association was seen between the severity of dental agenesis and the delay in dental age (P <0.01). With both methods, for each additional developmentally absent tooth, the dental age was delayed by 0.13 year (lower confidence interval, -0.22; upper confidence interval, 0.35). There was no evidence that sex or ethnicity has an effect on the delay in dental age in patients with dental agenesis. CONCLUSIONS: The development of permanent teeth in children with dental agenesis is delayed when compared with a matched control group. The severity of dental agenesis affected the magnitude of the delay (P <0.01). This delay has implications in orthodontic treatment planning and in the estimation of age for legal, immigration, archaeological, and forensic purposes.

Adult orthodontics in the absence of orthognathic treatment: a hospital perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To examine adult orthodontic treatment within two hospital settings and ascertain whether any factors have a statistically significant effect on treatment outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through the analysis of hospital case notes, variables relating to adult patients undergoing orthodontic treatment that did not involve orthognathic surgery between 1991 and 2008 at the Eastman Dental and Croydon University Hospitals, were studied. In addition, a proportion of study models were Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scored to determine treatment outcome. RESULTS: Females accounted for 76·2% of the adults studied, with a mean age of 31·24 years. The most commonly presenting malocclusion was a class II division 1 incisor relationship on a class II skeletal base, with over half of all patients studied having missing teeth upon presentation. The mean treatment length was 2·29 years. Only the type of orthodontic treatment (orthodontic-only or multidisciplinary) and/or the presence of a crowded upper labial segment had a statistically significant effect on treatment outcomes, as measured by PAR scores. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted demographical and treatment trends from a cohort of adult patients studied within two hospital orthodontic departments. It also illustrates that a crowded upper labial segment and the type of treatment provided has a statistically significant effect on post-treatment PAR scores.

Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?

OBJECTIVE: To compare measurements of occlusal relationships and arch dimensions taken from digital study models with those taken from plaster models. DESIGN: Laboratory study SETTING: The Orthodontic Department, Kettering General Hospital, Kettering, UK Methods and materials: One hundred and twelve sets of study models with a range of malocclusions and various degrees of crowding were selected. Occlusal features were measured manually with digital callipers on the plaster models. The same measurements were performed on digital images of the study models. Each method was carried out twice in order to check for intra-operator variability. The repeatability and reproducibility of the methods was assessed. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the two methods were found. In 8 of the 16 occlusal features measured, the plaster measurements were more repeatable. However, those differences were not of sufficient magnitude to have clinical relevance. In addition there were statistically significant systematic differences for 12 of the 16 occlusal features, with the plaster measurements being greater for 11 of these, indicating the digital model scans were not a true 11 representation of the plaster models. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of digital models compared with plaster models is satisfactory for clinical applications, although this study demonstrated some systematic differences. Digital study models can therefore be considered for use as an adjunct to clinical assessment of the occlusion, but as yet may not supersede current methods for scientific purposes.

Smile esthetics: the influence of posterior maxillary gingival margin position.

PURPOSE: Successful replacement of posterior teeth using contemporary prosthodontic techniques in esthetically demanding cases relies upon visual replication of the natural posterior dentition and surrounding gingival architecture. There is currently little in the way of guidance for creating ideal or acceptable gingival relationships for posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted comparing perceptions of four groups of individuals to six digitally manipulated images with various posterior teeth gingival margin position configurations. A total of 120 volunteers aged 12 years to 80 years, comprising 30 patients diagnosed with hypodontia, 30 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease, 30 patients without either condition, and 30 qualified dentists were recruited from the Eastman Dental Institute & Hospital, London. A ranked order of preference for each set was obtained, and this was repeated after a minimum time interval of 10 minutes. RESULTS: Posterior gingival margin configurations from 0 mm to 2 mm (measured at the first premolar) were deemed most esthetic by the majority of the patient groups; dentists had a strong preference for the 1 mm configuration. Dentists appeared to be more perceptive to the alterations in gingival positions. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior gingival margin configurations where the first premolar margins were 1 mm lower than the canine margins were deemed the most esthetically pleasing; however, it is likely that a range of acceptability of 1 mm deviations from this ideal exists.

The impact of hospitalization on oral health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health of hospitalized patients is associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired infections and reduced life quality. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on oral health changes during hospitalization. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline, OldMedline, Embase and CINAHL without language restrictions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational longitudinal studies. DATA APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Five before and after studies were included. The data suggest a deterioration in oral health following hospitalization with an increase in dental plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation and a deterioration in mucosal health. LIMITATIONS: While before and after studies are at a general risk of bias, other specific study characteristics were judged to have a low risk of bias. However, methodological issues such as unvalidated outcome measures and the lack of assessor training limit the strength of the evidence. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization is associated with a deterioration in oral health, particularly in intubated patients.

Amoxicillin and metronidazole as an adjunctive treatment in generalized aggressive periodontitis at initial therapy or re-treatment: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we showed that systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin significantly improved the outcomes of non-surgical debridement in generalized aggressive periodontitis patients. This study aimed to observe whether re-treatment with adjunctive antimicrobials would give the placebo group benefits comparable with the test group. METHODS: Thirty-eight of 41 subjects, from the initial 6-month trial, completed the second phase, re-treatment of sites with remaining pockets 5 mm. Subjects on placebo in phase one, received adjunctive antibiotics for 7 days. Clinical parameters were collected at 2 months posttreatment (8 months from baseline). RESULTS: Patients who received antibiotics at initial therapy, showed statistically significant improvement in pocket depth reduction and in the % of sites improving above clinically relevant thresholds, compared with patients who received antibiotics at re-treatment. In deep pockets (7 mm), the mean difference was 0.9 mm (p=0.003) and in moderate pockets (4-6 mm) it was 0.4 mm (p=0.036). For pockets converting from 5 to 4 mm, this was 83% compared with 67% (p=0.041) and pockets converting from 4 to 3 mm was 63% compared with 49% (p=0.297). CONCLUSIONS: At 8 months, patients who had antibiotics at initial therapy showed statistically significant benefits compared with those who had antibiotics at re-treatment.