Efficacy of Probiotics Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Improving Periodontal Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: To critically evaluate the available literature and conduct a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of probiotics compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in enhancing periodontal health. Methods: Five databases were searched electronically, as well as the gray literature. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, the risk of bias was examined. The weighted mean difference (WMD) method was used to calculate the effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and τ 2 statistics. The GRADE approach was adopted to assess the certainty of the evidence. To assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were undertaken. Results: A total of 1850 studies were initially identified. Sixteen clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and ten were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of the gingival index, in total, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics within 4 weeks (WMD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09∼0.04, P = 0.3885). Similar to GI, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics regarding the plaque index within 4 weeks (WMD 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05∼0.28, P = 0.1726). No statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics in all time intervals regarding oral hygiene index-simplified (WMD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05∼0.04, P = 0.7508). The robustness of these findings was confirmed by sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessments. Conclusions: Based on the findings, probiotics were an acceptable alternative to conventional chlorhexidine in improving periodontal health. High-quality studies with rigorous methodology should be conducted to assess the optimum doses of probiotics for clinical implications.

The influence of wisdom tooth impaction and occlusal support on mandibular angle and condyle fractures.

This study aimed to analyze the relationship of the occlusal support together with the lower third molars to the mandibular fractures of the angle and condyle among patients in our medical institutions. This was a retrospective study that reviewed the medical records and radiographs of all patients treated for mandibular fractures from 2015 to 2019. The data collected by using picture archiving and communicating system. Only records with mandibular angle or condyle fractures were included. The dependent variable was the presence of the fractures of the mandibular angle or condyle. The independent variables were epidemiological data, third molar characteristics, existence or absence of occlusal support. The data was analyzed through Univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression. From a total of 187 mandibular fractures, 44 presented mandibular angle fracture and 29 shown condyle fractures. The average age was 40.34 ± 13.47 years. The absence of occlusal support increased the chance of condyle fractures by 5.1 times (95% CI 1.61-17.29). The lack of occlusal support is more associated with condyle fractures than the presence of occlusal support, regardless of third molar presence and characteristics and other variables evaluated.

Relationship between bariatric surgery and periodontal status: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effects of bariatric surgery can reflect in the oral cavity and can cause alterations in oral health. This high prevalence of oral alterations in the pre and post-operative periods has been highlighted in different studies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of bariatric surgery on periodontal status through a systematic review. METHODS: Electronic search was conducted in PubMed, VHL, Web of Science, Science direct, Scopus, and Cochrane databases through May 2017. Manual search, gray literature, and counter-refence of included articles were also conducted. Eligibility criteria included observational studies that reported periodontal outcomes before and after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: Search strategy resulted in 1878 articles. Following the selection process, nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis and five in the meta-analysis. Three cross-sectional studies showed risk of bias score ranging from 5 to 6 stars, and Cohort studies scored from 6 to 9 stars out of 9 possible stars on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The quantitative analysis showed that clinical attachment level (MD: 0.07; CI95% -0.17 to 0.31), gingival index (MD: -0.28; CI95% -1.68 to 1.11), percentage of bleeding sites (MD: -0.21; CI95% -0.77 to 0.35), and pocket probing depth (MD: 0.08 CI95% -0.14 to 0.31) were not different before and after bariatric surgery. However, the plaque index was lower after than before bariatric surgery (MD: -1.29; CI 95% -2.34 to -0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Plaque index can be improved after bariatric surgery. The present systematic review investigated the association between bariatric surgery and periodontal status from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. A systematic search strategy was developed until May 2017. The results of this systematic review allowed the conclusion that the plaque index can be improved after bariatric surgery.