RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is associated with several congenital anomalies, including non-syndromic orofacial clefts (NSOFCs). This systematic review aimed to update the literature on the association between ETS and NSOFCs. METHODS: Four databases were searched up to March 2022, and studies that evaluated the association between ETS and NSOFCs were selected. Two authors selected the studies, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Comparing the association of maternal exposure to ETS and active parental smoking with NSOFCs allowed for the creation of pooled effect estimates for the included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were deemed eligible for this review, of which 14 were reported in a previous systematic review. Twenty five were case-control studies, and one was a cohort study. In total, these studies included 2142 NSOFC cases compared to 118129 controls. All meta-analyses showed an association between ETS and the risk of having a child with NSOFC, based on the cleft phenotype, risk of bias, and year of publication, with a pooled increased odds ratio of 1.80 (95% CI: 1.51-2.15). These studies had a marked heterogeneity, which decreased upon subgrouping based on the recent year of publication and the risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: ETS exposure was associated with more than a 1.5-fold increase in the risk of having a child with NSOFC, showing a higher odds ratio than paternal and maternal active smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database # CRD42021272909.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To evaluate the retention of light-curing skills among dental students after two years of clinical experience and determine if there are any differences in the skills retention between students who received verbal instructions or those who had received an instructional video. The students' satisfaction with past learning, self-confidence, and general knowledge about light-curing were also evaluated. Methods: This study is a 2-year evaluation of previous work. Students had previously been divided into two groups: those who received only verbal instructions, and those who received only an instructional video about the correct light curing technique to use clinically. Each student had light-cured simulated restorations (anterior and posterior) for 10 sec using the Managing Accurate Resin Curing-Patient Simulator (MARC-PS) (BlueLight Analytics, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) and a multiple-emission peak light-emitting-diode (Bluephase N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) curing light. Students then received instructions according to their assigned group and light-cured the simulated cavities again. Two years later, students from both groups light-cured the same simulated cavities. Then, they completed a modified version of the National League of Nursing (NLN) satisfaction and self-confidence questionnaire and answered light-curing knowledge questions. Statistical analysis: The mean radiant exposure values delivered before receiving specific instructions on light curing, immediately after, and two years after instruction for both teaching methods (Friedman test followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank post hoc test), and the difference between both teaching methods was assessed (two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The satisfaction and self-confidence scores were compared between teaching method groups (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) (p<0.05). Results: The mean and median irradiance values ranged between 194-1777 and 1223-1302 mW/cm2 before instructions, 320-1689 and 1254-1394 mW/cm2 immediately after instructions, and 95-1945 and 1260-1331 mW/cm2 two years later regardless of the simulated restoration or the teaching method. The mean and median radiant exposure values ranged between 2-23 and 12.5-13.6.4 J/cm2 before instructions, 3-28 and 12.8-14.3 mW/cm2 immediately after instructions, and 0.7-20 and 12.8-13.6 mW/cm2 two years later regardless of the simulated tooth being light cured and the teaching method. Students retained their light-curing skills after two years of clinical experience, with no significant differences between both groups. The instructional video group delivered significantly higher radiant exposure values (p=0.021) when light-curing the anterior tooth than the posterior. Students were satisfied with their past learning and confident in their light-curing skills (p=0.020). There were statistical differences in how well the two groups remembered what they had been taught about light-curing. Only 5.7% of students answered all knowledge questions correctly. Conclusion: Students retained their light-curing skills after two years of clinical experience, with no significant difference between verbal instructions or instructional video teaching methods. However, their knowledge about light curing remained very poor. Nevertheless, the students were satisfied with how they had been taught and had confidence in both teaching methods.
