Posterior dental restoration material choices in privately insured people in the United States, 2017 through 2019.

BACKGROUND: In the context of evolving dental materials and techniques and a national agenda to phasedown use of dental amalgam, estimates of dental amalgam placement are necessary for monitoring purposes. METHODS: Numbers of amalgam and composite posterior restorations from 2017 through 2019 were calculated using retrospective dental claims analysis of privately insured patients. Kruskal-Wallis and multilevel, multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to test for differences in rates of amalgam and composite restoration placement by age group, sex, urban or rural area, and percentage race and ethnicity area distribution. Statistical significance was set at 0.05, with Benjamini-Hochberg correction for false discovery rate. RESULTS: The rate of amalgam restorations declined over time from a mean of 6.29 per 100 patients in 2017 to 4.78 per 100 patients in 2019, whereas the composite restoration rate increased from 27.6 per 100 patients in 2017 to 28.8 per 100 in 2019. The mean number of amalgam restorations placed per person were lowest in females compared with males, in urban areas compared with rural areas, and in areas with more than 75% non-Hispanic White residents. CONCLUSIONS: Amalgam restoration placements in privately insured people in the United States declined from 2017 through 2019. Amalgam restoration placements may be unevenly distributed by location. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Achieving further declines of dental amalgam use may require changes to insurance coverage, incentives, and provider training as well as augmented disease prevention and health promotion efforts. These efforts should focus particularly on groups with high caries risk or higher rates of amalgam placement.

Antibiotic prescription patterns among US general dentists and periodontists.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of a full spectrum of evidence-based guidelines for the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents, dentists, including periodontists, remain a highly frequent antibiotic prescribing group. With the goal of understanding antibiotic prescribing practices, the authors surveyed a convenience sample of dental practitioners and periodontists to identify differences between the 2 cohorts and assess the factors that affect prescribing practices. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved 15-item survey was developed to capture antibiotic prescribing practices addressing the main research question, factors affecting systemic antibiotic prescription patterns, and prescription timing. The authors collaborated with the American Dental Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) for survey dissemination. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Multivariable models were developed to identify antibiotic prescription predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 32.4% of the participants prescribed systemic antibiotics with scaling and root planing. When comparing the 2 groups, the authors found that 46.4% and 18.7% of the AAP and ADA members, respectively, prescribed systemic antibiotics with scaling and root planing (P = .0001). The authors found a significant difference between the AAP and ADA groups in prescription timing (P = .01). The multivariable model revealed that practitioner sex (P = .03), AAP membership (P = .0001), and years of practitioner experience (P = .04) predicted antibiotic prescription practices. The geographic location, practice setting, and occupation type did not predict antibiotic prescription patterns. CONCLUSION: The authors found a lack of clarity related to prescription timing, factors determining prescription patterns, and selection of patient population who would benefit more from antibiotics. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study confirmed a lack of clarity related to antibiotic prescription patterns in combination with nonsurgical periodontal treatment.

United States Dental Health Care Workers' Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms and understand factors influencing mental health among dental health care workers (DHCWs) in the United States (US) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Beginning in June 2020, dentists (DDS) and dental hygienists (DH) in the US were invited to participate monthly in an anonymous, longitudinal, web-based survey. The Patient Health Questionaire-4 (PHQ-4) was used to estimate rates of anxiety and depression symptoms. Changes in mental health over time and differences by demographic and practice characteristics, COVID-19 community transmission level and COVID-19 vaccination status were tested using χ2 tests and multilevel multivariable logistic regression.Results: A total of 8,902 DHCWs (DH, DDS) participated in the survey for a response rate of 6.7%. Anxiety symptom rates peaked in November 2020 (28% DH; 17% DDS) and declined to 12% for both professions in May 2021. Depression symptoms were highest in December 2020 (17% DH; 10% DDS) and declined to 8% in May 2021. Controlling for gender, age, race, ethnicity and community COVID-19 transmission levels, DDS respondents had lower odds of anxiety symptoms (aOR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) and depression symptoms (aOR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93) than DHs. Compared to vaccinated respondents, DHCWs who were unvaccinated but were planning on getting vaccinated had significantly higher rates of anxiety (aOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.44) and depression symptoms (aOR 1.57; CI 1.07 to 2.29).Conclusions: The mental health status of DHCWs fluctuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anxiety and depression were associated with the demographic and professional characteristics of the DHCW as well as the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection. Mental health support should be made available for all DHCWs.

US dental health care workers' mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms and understand factors influencing mental health among dental health care workers (DHCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Beginning in June 2020, 8,902 DHCWs participated monthly in an anonymous longitudinal, web-based survey (response rate, 6.7%). The Patient Health Questionnaire-4 was used to estimate rates of anxiety and depression symptoms. Changes in mental health over time and differences by demographic and practice characteristics, COVID-19 community transmission level, and COVID-19 vaccination status were tested using χ2 tests and multilevel multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Anxiety symptom rates peaked in November 2020 (28% of dental hygienists, 17% of dentists) and declined to 12% for both professions in May 2021. Depression symptom rates were highest in December 2020 (17% of dental hygienists, 10% of dentists) and declined to 8% in May 2021. Controlling for gender, age, race or ethnicity, and COVID-19 community transmission level, the authors found that dentists had significantly lower odds of anxiety symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.95) and depression symptoms (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93) than dental hygienists. Compared with vaccinated respondents, those who were unvaccinated but planning on getting vaccinated had significantly higher rates of anxiety (aOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.44) and depression (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.29) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: DHCWs' mental health fluctuated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression in DHCWs were associated with demographic and professional characteristics as well as perceived risk of COVID-19. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Mental health support should be made available for DHCWs. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration numbers are NCT04423770 and NCT04542915.

COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy of Dental Hygienists in the United States.

Purpose: Vaccinations represent an important public health tool for mitigating dangerous diseases; nevertheless, there is concern and hesitancy regarding vaccinations including those for COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to determine the intentions and hesitancy among dental hygienists in the United States (US) toward COVID-19 vaccination.Methods: Dental hygienists in the US were surveyed from 1/4/21 to 8/16/21 regarding their intentions to get vaccinated and whether they received a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccination questions were part of an anonymous, ongoing longitudinal web-based survey of dental hygienists' employment and infection control trends. Willingness or actual COVID-19 vaccination versus vaccine hesitancy were analyzed by differences in demographic characteristics using multivariable logistic regression and X2 and Fisher's exact tests.Results: Full COVID-19 vaccination rates in US dental hygienists rose sharply from 2/5/21 to 3/5/21 (26.0% to 53.9%) and leveled off to 75.4% by 8/30/21. The highest rates of vaccine hesitancy were among dental hygienists aged 26-39 years and those who had contracted COVID-19 during the time of the survey. The lowest vaccination hesitancy rates were seen among Non-Hispanic Asians and individuals 65+. When controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and years practiced, dental hygienists who had contracted COVID-19 had higher odds of being vaccine hesitant (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 1.847, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.274, 2.678). Having contracted COVID-19 was also associated with respondents changing from being hesitant to be vaccinated to being willing to be vaccinated (aOR: 4.071, 95% CI: 1.652, 10.030).Conclusion: Although vaccine acceptance is high among dental hygienists in the US, vaccine hesitancy remains an ongoing concern. Dental hygienists are key prevention specialists who should promote adherence to vaccination recommendations for the health of the public. Further education in virology, epidemiology, and vaccination education is recommended.

Employment Patterns of Dental Hygienists in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An update.

Purpose: Despite recovery in dental practices' patient volume, dentists in the United States (US) continue to report difficulties in hiring dental hygienists due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study updates previous data on US dental hygienists' employment patterns and attitudes concerning returning to work.Methods: Licensed dental hygienists were invited to participate in monthly web-based surveys between September 2020 and August 2021. Employment questions included current and pre-pandemic work status as well as reasons for not currently working as a clinical dental hygienist. Descriptive statistics were used to describe dental hygienists' employment status and reasons for not currently working. Cross tabulation analysis included employment status and reasons for not working by age group.Results: As of August 2021, 4.9% (n=59) of the participants reported that they were not currently employed as a dental hygienist. Most reported that the reason for non-employment as a dental hygienist was voluntary (74.1%; n=43).Safety concerns for self and others were the primary reasons for not returning to work; participants also indicated retirement or that they no longer wished to practice due to the pandemic. However, the percentage of respondents citing insufficient childcare, wanting the COVID-19 vaccine but not obtaining it, and having an underlying health condition, decreased between the beginning and the conclusion of the study.Conclusion: A measurable degree of hesitancy among US dental hygienists to return to work has persisted over a year and a half into the pandemic and may continue despite some improvements in workplace safety and vaccine uptake. Future research should examine workforce levels after the pandemic resolves.

Infection Prevention and Control Practices of Dental Hygienists in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A longitudinal study.

Purpose: The SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate, and the COVID-19 pandemic remains a global health crisis. The purpose of this longitudinal study was to continue to analyze the use of infection prevention and control practices (IPC) and personal protective equipment (PPE) by dental hygienists in the United States (US) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Web-based surveys on COVID-19 related health, IPC, and PPE were administered monthly to a panel of US licensed dental hygienists (n=6,976) from September 2020 to August 2021. Trends over time and predictors of IPC and PPE use were estimated using Stata 17.0 xt commands and multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Linear regression modeling for trends in time and tests for changes in trends were conducted (Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.9.0.0).Results: Almost all practicing dental hygienists (99.9%, 14,926 observations) reported COVID-19 specific IPC in place at their primary dental practice. Consistently >96% of dental hygienists reported operatory disinfection and staff masking over the study period. Patient face masking and physical protections such as barriers or air filtration increased in use over time, then declined in spring 2021. Screening or interviewing patients before appointments, checking patient temperatures before treatment, checking staff temperatures at shift start, disinfecting frequently touched surfaces, and encouraging distance between patients were reported by >85% of respondents until March 2021, at which point significant decreases were observed. Wearing a mask or respirator and eye protection during patient care consistently rose over time from September 2020 (77.1%) to August 2021 (81.4%). Always wearing a N95 or equivalently protective respirators during aerosol generating procedures peaked in 2/2021 and declined thereafter. Dental practice setting, supply of respirators, COVID-19 vaccination, and COVID-19 community transmission level were significantly associated with IPC and PPE use.Conclusion: Most US dental hygienists reported always wearing masks and eye protection during patient care and a variety of IPC types have been instituted to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in dental practice settings. However, the use of N95 or equivalent respirators and some additional IPC methods declined during 2021.

Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged ≥15 years: NHANES 2011-2016.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the proportion of amalgam restorations among the US population. METHODS: Data from ≥15 year old clinically examined dentate participants in three 2-year survey cycles (NHANES 2011-2016) were analyzed. The 2015-2016 data include restorative material type, allowing for the first time a US estimate of amalgam-restored teeth. RESULTS: The percent of the US population with at least one restoration (65.8 ± 1.4) was relatively constant in 2011-2016. Among those with restored teeth, the mean number of teeth with amalgam restorations increased with age from 4.71 among 15-24 year olds to 7.03 among those ≥75 years. Non-Hispanic Whites with restored teeth had the highest mean of teeth with amalgam restorations (5.94), while non-Hispanic Blacks had the lowest (5.08). CONCLUSION: In 2015-2016, about half (51.5 percent) of restored teeth in the US population contained amalgam. Amalgam presence varied by age, tooth type, and race/ethnicity, but not by sex. These estimates can be used to assess future US caries prevention and dental amalgam reduction efforts.

COVID-2019 among dentists in the United States: A 6-month longitudinal report of accumulative prevalence and incidence.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the America Dental Association released COVID-19 infection control interim guidance for US dentists, advising the use of optimal personal protection equipment during aerosol-generating procedures. The aim of this longitudinal study was to determine the cumulative prevalence and incidence rates of COVID-19 among dentists and to assess their level of engagement in specific infection control practices. METHODS: US dentists were invited to participate in a monthly web-based survey from June through November 2020. Approximately one-third of initial respondents (n = 785) participated in all 6 surveys, and they were asked about COVID-19 testing received, symptoms experienced, and infection prevention procedures followed in their primary practice. RESULTS: Over a 6-month period, the cumulative COVID-19 infection prevalence rate was 2.6%, representing 57 dentists who ever received a diagnosis of COVID-19. The incidence rates ranged from 0.2% through 1.1% each month. The proportion of dentists tested for COVID-19 increased over time, as did the rate of dentists performing aerosol-generating procedures. Enhanced infection prevention and control strategies in the dental practice were reported by nearly every participant monthly, and rates of personal protection equipment optimization, such as changing masks after each patient, dropped over time. CONCLUSIONS: US dentists continue to show a high level of adherence to enhanced infection control procedures in response to the ongoing pandemic, resulting in low rates of cumulative prevalence of COVID-19. Dentists are showing adherence to a strict protocol for enhanced infection control, which should help protect their patients, their dental team members, and themselves. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 infections among practicing dentists will likely remain low if dentists continue to adhere to guidance.

COVID-19 Prevalence and Related Practices among Dental Hygienists in the United States.

Purpose: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care professionals have been challenged to provide appropriate preventive and therapeutic measures while using precautions to minimize disease transmission. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 among United States (US) dental hygienists, describe infection prevention and control procedures and any associated trends in mental health.Methods: Registered dental hygienists (RDHs) licensed in the US were invited to participate in a 30-question web-based survey. COVID-19 infection items included probable and confirmed results, COVID-19 related symptoms experienced in the last month, and level of concern about COVID-19 transmission to patients and themselves. The validated Patient Health Questionnaire 4 screened respondents for depression or anxiety. Personal protective equipment (PPE) use when treating patients was assessed. The research protocol and survey were approved by the American Dental Association IRB and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04542915). Kruskal-Wallis and X2 tests were used to test for associations between PPE use, PPE supply, mental health symptoms, and concern about COVID-19 transmission.Results: As of October 8, 2020, a total of 4,776 dental hygienists from all 50 states and Puerto Rico participated in the study. Respondents reported elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression. Of the respondents, 3.1% (n=149) had ever tested positive or been diagnosed with COVID-19. The majority of respondents (99.1%; n=3,328) who practiced dental hygiene reported their primary dental practice had enhanced infection prevention or control efforts in response to the pandemic. PPE use was significantly associated with years of experience as a dental hygienist, level of concern about COVID-19, and level of PPE supplies available (p-values<0.01), but not type of dental practice (p-value 0.1).Conclusion: As of October 2020, the estimated prevalence rate of dental hygienists in the US having had COVID-19 was low. There is a need for further support for dental hygienists' use of PPE and mental health.

Employment Patterns of Dental Hygienists in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to drops in patient volume and staffing in dental practices in the United States (US). This study aimed to provide insights on dental hygienists' employment patterns as well as their attitudes toward working as dental hygienists during a pandemic.Methods: Licensed dental hygienists were invited to participate in a web-based 30-question survey between September 29 and October 8, 2020. Employment questions included current and pre-pandemic work status, reasons for not currently working as a dental hygienist, and estimated levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the primary work location. All statistical analysis was conducted in Qualtrics Core XM; cross tabulation was used to examine dental hygienist working patterns and attitudes by age, practice PPE supply, and other factors.Results: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an estimated 8% reduction in dental hygienist employment. The majority (59.1%, n=205) of this reduction is voluntary, with the main reason being general concerns over COVID-19 (48.3%, n=100). Other reasons include issues surrounding childcare and concerns over safety measures in the workplace. Dental hygienists aged 65 and older were most likely to have left the workforce voluntarily. More than half of respondents reported that their work locations had more than a two-week supply of most PPE items, although about 10% did not know supply levels. Dental hygienists working in settings with lower supplies of PPE were more concerned with COVID-19 transmission risk to themselves or to patients.Conclusion: COVID-19 has led to a reduction in the dental hygienist workforce that is likely to persist until the pandemic passes.The dental hygienist labor market has tightened and employers may continue to experience difficulties in filling vacant dental hygienist positions until the pandemic subsides. There is also likely to be a longer term, yet smaller, impact on dental hygiene employment levels.

Estimating COVID-19 prevalence and infection control practices among US dentists.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the risks associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during oral health care delivery and assessing mitigation strategies for dental offices are critical to improving patient safety and access to oral health care. METHODS: The authors invited licensed US dentists practicing primarily in private practice or public health to participate in a web-based survey in June 2020. Dentists from every US state (n = 2,195) answered questions about COVID-19-associated symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 infection, mental and physical health conditions, and infection control procedures used in their primary dental practices. RESULTS: Most of the dentists (82.2%) were asymptomatic for 1 month before administration of the survey; 16.6% reported being tested for SARS-CoV-2; and 3.7%, 2.7%, and 0% tested positive via respiratory, blood, and salivary samples, respectively. Among those not tested, 0.3% received a probable COVID-19 diagnosis from a physician. In all, 20 of the 2,195 respondents had been infected with SARS-CoV-2; weighted according to age and location to approximate all US dentists, 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 1.5) had confirmed or probable COVID-19. Dentists reported symptoms of depression (8.6%) and anxiety (19.5%). Enhanced infection control procedures were implemented in 99.7% of dentists' primary practices, most commonly disinfection, COVID-19 screening, social distancing, and wearing face masks. Most practicing dentists (72.8%) used personal protective equipment according to interim guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 prevalence and testing positivity rates were low among practicing US dentists. This indicates that the current infection control recommendations may be sufficient to prevent infection in dental settings. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists have enhanced their infection control practices in response to COVID-19 and may benefit from greater availability of personal protective equipment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04423770.

Summary of the evidence on the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccines: Umbrella review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: This objective of this umbrella review was to summarize the evidence on safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in the general population. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search and selected systematic reviews if they were published from January 2006 through November 2018, included randomized controlled trials or observational studies, related to the general population, and evaluated HPV vaccine-related clinical outcomes. The authors independently and in duplicate screened literature, extracted data, and appraised reviews using AMSTAR 2, a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. RESULTS: The authors selected 30 systematic reviews that included male and female participants aged 9 through 76 years from multiple countries. Reviews evaluated postvaccine seroconversion, HPV infection rates, precancerous or benign lesions, and adverse events; none of the researchers reported on oral or oropharyngeal lesions. Results from the reviews showed that, compared with those who received a placebo or non-HPV-type vaccine, HPV-vaccinated participants had statistically significantly higher rates of seroconversion and local adverse events, statistically significantly lower rates of HPV infection and condylomata lesions, and decreased rates of HPV-related precancerous lesions, which did not always attain statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews have found evidence that the available HPV vaccines are safe, effective, and efficacious against vaccine-type HPV infection and HPV-associated cellular changes, including precancerous and benign lesions. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists may use this resource to better understand the literature on the potential harms and benefits of HPV vaccination.

Effect of dental treatment before cardiac valve surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the potential effect of dental treatment before cardiac valve surgery (CVS) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on morbidity and mortality. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included relevant studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published from 1998 through 2019 and involving adults who received dental treatment before CVS or LVAD implantation. The authors assessed bias by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and evidence certainty by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors used a meta-analysis with a random-effects model to estimate dichotomous and continuous outcomes, expressed as relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria for CVS but none for LVAD implantation. Very low certainty in the evidence suggested uncertainty as to whether health outcomes for patients undergoing dental treatment before CVS differed from those who did not. Postsurgical outcomes included all-cause mortality (RR, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.91), infective endocarditis (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.51 to 3.35), postsurgical infection (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33), and length of stay in the hospital (weighted mean difference, 2.9; 95% CI, -2.3 to 8.1). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: From the available evidence, it is unclear whether postoperative outcomes differ in patients receiving dental treatment before CVS compared with outcomes in those who do not. Dentists and medical care professionals should collaborate on an appropriate course of action for each patient, weighing any potentially relevant care considerations.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonrestorative treatments for carious lesions: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated evidence-based clinical recommendations for the arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated dental caries using nonrestorative treatments in children and adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on nonrestorative treatments for noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The expert panel formulated 11 clinical recommendations, each specific to lesion type, tooth surface, and dentition. Of the most effective interventions, the panel provided recommendations for the use of 38% silver diamine fluoride, sealants, 5% sodium fluoride varnish, 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, and 5,000 parts per million fluoride (1.1% sodium fluoride) toothpaste or gel, among others. The panel also provided a recommendation against the use of 10% casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although the recommended interventions are often used for caries prevention, or in conjunction with restorative treatment options, these approaches have shown to be effective in arresting or reversing carious lesions. Clinicians are encouraged to prioritize use of these interventions based on effectiveness, safety, and feasibility.

Benefits and harms of capnography during procedures involving moderate sedation: A rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a priority in dentistry. Evaluating the benefits and harms associated with the addition of capnography to standard monitoring during moderate sedation for adult patients in the dental practice setting is needed. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors used rapid review methodology to identify relevant systematic reviews, which they updated through a systematic search by using the same search strategy as the identified reviews. The authors searched PubMed and Google Scholar and through the references of the identified systematic reviews, which yielded 2,892 studies. Inclusion criteria were that the article was available in English, was original research in adult humans who had undergone moderate procedural sedation, and involved comparing standard monitoring with the addition of capnography. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were eligible, involving 3,866 adults undergoing procedural sedation. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the evidence and rate it as being of moderate to low quality because of high risk of bias and heterogeneous effects for the outcomes of hypoxemia and adverse respiratory events. Capnography had higher sensitivity to detect adverse respiratory events than did standard monitoring alone (0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.99) and may reduce the risk of developing hypoxemia by 31% (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.82). Capnography did not affect the risk of developing serious adverse events, procedure time, sedation quality, or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Adding capnography to standard monitoring of adults during moderate sedation may reduce the risk of developing hypoxemia, increase detection of adverse respiratory events, and is not associated with additional harms. These findings suggest routine use of capnography during moderate sedation has the potential to reduce adverse anesthetic outcomes in dental practice.

Meta-analysis of the effect of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse on gingivitis and plaque.

BACKGROUND: Standard recommendations for oral hygiene practices have focused on mechanical methods (toothbrushing and interdental cleaning). Published evidence indicates antimicrobial mouthrinses provide oral health benefits beyond mechanical methods alone. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the combined effectiveness of mechanical methods with essential oil-containing mouthrinses (MMEO) versus mechanical methods (MM) alone in achieving site-specific, healthy gingival tissue and reducing plaque and gingivitis. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: All industry-sponsored clinical trials investigating the antigingivitis and antiplaque effects of essential oil (EO)-containing mouthrinses conducted from 1980 to 2012 were reviewed; 29 of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria of 6 months or longer duration, randomized, observer-masked, placebo-controlled, and with individual-level site-specific data. By-study treatment effects were estimated through generalized linear models for binary data and analysis of covariance for continuous data, and then combined using standard meta-analysis techniques; heterogeneity was also assessed. RESULTS: Summary odds ratios for a healthy gingival site and for a plaque-free site were, respectively, 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-7.5) and 7.8 (95% CI, 5.4-11.2) for MMEO participants versus MM participants at 6 months. The summary percentage reductions in whole-mouth mean gingivitis and plaque at 6 months were 16.0 (95% CI, 11.3-20.7) and 27.7 (95% CI, 22.4-32.9), respectively. Responder analyses using aggregate individual-level data showed 44.8% of MMEO participants and 14.4% of MM participants achieved at least 50% healthy sites in their mouths at 6 months. Similarly, 36.9% of MMEO participants and 5.5% of MM participants achieved at least 50% plaque-free sites in their mouths at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate the clinically significant, site-specific benefit of adjunctive EO treatment in people within a 6-month period (that is, between dental visits).