Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E59
Author(s):  
JL de Geus ◽  
BM Maran ◽  
KA Cabral ◽  
A Dávila-Sánchez ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference

Clinical Relevance The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical performance of filled vs unfilled adhesive systems when applied in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE. Gray literature was also screened. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The risk of bias of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rate, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries of noncarious cervical lesions restored with filled adhesives vs unfilled adhesives. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 3662 studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained for qualitative analyses and 28 studies for the meta-analysis. Only one study was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the other 28 were considered to have unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between filled adhesives compared with unfilled adhesives in relation to loss of retention, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries at any of the follow-up periods (12–18 months, 24–30 months, 3 years, and 5 years or longer). The quality of evidence was graded as moderate for most outcomes at the respective follow-ups, except when there was an explained heterogeneity, which occurred mainly for loss of retention at the 12-month to 3-year follow-up. The results did not depend on whether microfilled or nanofilled adhesives had been investigated. Conclusions: The addition of fillers into the composition of adhesive systems did not increase the clinical performance (retention rates, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries) of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions when compared with unfilled adhesives.

Compliance of Randomized Clinical Trials in Noncarious Cervical Lesions With the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review of Methodology

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. E129-E151 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Reis ◽  
JL de Geus ◽  
L Wambier ◽  
M Schroeder ◽  
AD Loguercio
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY The literature was reviewed to evaluate the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT ) and the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). RCTs were searched at Cochrane Library, PubMed, and other electronic databases to find studies about adhesive systems for cervical lesions. The compliance of the articles with CONSORT was evaluated using the following scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country, and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were left for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received scores of 0 or 1. Flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size were more critical items, with 80% receiving a score of 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among countries was observed (p<0.001), as well as range of year (p<0.001). Only 4.3% of the studies were judged as at low risk; 36.2% were classified as having unclear risk and 59.4% as having high risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating adhesive systems to the CONSORT is low with unclear/high risk of bias.

scholarly journals Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamia Gadallah ◽  
Mahmoud Hamdy ◽  
Adel El Bardissy ◽  
Mohamed Abou El Yazeed
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Tooth Pulp ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pulp Exposure

Background: Early childhood caries is a serious public health problem. When caries extend to involve the pulp, various forms of pulp treatment are tried to stimulate tooth repair. Although pulpotomy is the treatment of choice for vital primary tooth pulp exposure but there is a trend among many dentists to perform pulpectomies  in vital primary incisors. This study aimed to assess the effect of pulpotomy and pulpecomy in treatment of carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. Methods: We searched Pubmed and Cochrane library databases up to March, 2018, OpenGrey for grey literature and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials were included and assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool . Primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure. The effect sizes were calculated as risk ratios with 95%CI using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Four trials were identified for qualitative assessment, only three trials were included in meta-analysis after exclusion of one trial due to its high risk of bias. The pooled results of the longest follow up period for clinical failure showed no statistically significant difference between pulpotomy and pulpectomy. The relative risk (RR) was e 2.69, 95% CI 0.76 to 9.58 for clinical failure. For radiographic failure, the sensitivity analysis showed RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.83 with a higher risk for radiographic failure in pulpectomy. The evidence was limited by the small number of trials included in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Both pulpotomy and pulpectomy can be used successfully in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. Further high quality studies comparing between pulpotomy and pulpectomy in primary incisors with longer follow up period till exfoliation time are needed.

Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 609-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad J Swidi ◽  
Andreea E Griffin ◽  
Peter H Buschang
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Meta Analyses

SummaryBackgroundAlthough post-treatment mandibular alignment has been extensively investigated, the findings remain controversial.ObjectivesThe objective was to assess mandibular alignment changes, as measured by the irregularity index, of patients who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment and were followed up at least 1 year after retention.Search methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, in addition, the reference lists of included studies, were screened. The search was conducted up to April 2018.Selection criteriaThe study designs included both interventional and observational studies of orthodontic patients who received either extraction or non-extraction treatment.Data collection and analysisThe interventional studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated using National Institution of Health quality assessment tools. The first two authors independently applied the eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any conflicts were resolved with consensus discussion with the third author.ResultsThe search retrieved 11 326 articles, 170 of which were assessed for eligibility. There were 44 studies included in the qualitative assessments and 30 in the meta-analyses. The studies included 1 randomized control trial (RCT) and 43 observational studies. The RCT was judged to have a high risk of bias and all of the observational studies had either fair or poor quality. The meta-analysis was based on studies judged to be of fair quality, including a total of 1859 patients. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. The standardized mean difference between post-treatment and post-retention irregularity was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.04–1.40) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63–1.07) after extraction and non-extraction treatments, respectively. There was a substantial heterogeneity for the extraction (I2 = 75.2%) and non-extraction (I2 = 70.1%) studies. The follow-up duration (1–10 versus 10–20 years) explained 33% of the heterogeneity, with longer follow-up studies showing more irregularity.LimitationsThe quality of evidence provided by the studies was low. There was a risk of publication bias, and the search was limited to English language.Conclusions and implicationsPost-treatment mandibular irregularity increases are limited. Irregularity increases are slightly greater in patients treated with mandibular premolars extractions, and in patients followed up over longer periods of time.RegistrationThe study protocol was not registered.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of weekend discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 347-355
Author(s):  
Chia-Yu Chiu ◽  
David Oria ◽  
Peter Yangga ◽  
Dasol Kang
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Weekend Effect ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Quality Of Patient Care ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Usa

Abstract Purpose Hospital bed utility and length of stay affect the healthcare budget and quality of patient care. Prior studies already show admission and operation on weekends have higher mortality rates compared with weekdays, which has been identified as the ‘weekend effect.’ However, discharges on weekends are also linked with quality of care, and have been evaluated in the recent decade with different dimensions. This meta-analysis aims to discuss weekend discharges associated with 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, 30-day emergency department visits and 14-day follow-up visits compared with weekday discharges. Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to November 2019. Study selection Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Only studies published in English were reviewed. The random-effects model was applied to assess the effects of heterogeneity among the selected studies. Data extraction Year of publication, country, sample size, number of weekday/weekend discharges, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, 30-day ED visits and 14-day appointment follow-up rate. Results of data synthesis There are 20 studies from seven countries, including 13 articles from America, in the present meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in odds ratio (OR) in 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, 30-day ED visit, and 14-day follow-up between weekday and weekend. However, the OR for 30-day readmission was significantly higher among patients in the USA, including studies with high heterogeneity. Conclusion In the USA, the 30-day readmission rate was higher in patients who had been discharged on the weekend compared with the weekday. However, interpretation should be cautious because of data limitation and high heterogeneity. Further intervention should be conducted to eliminate any healthcare inequality within the healthcare system and to improve the quality of patient care.

Challenging the Concept that OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond in NCCLs Are Gold Standard Adhesives: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
FDS Dreweck ◽  
A Burey ◽  
M de Oliveira Dreweck ◽  
E Fernandez ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Purpose: The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: “Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered “gold standard” (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands”? Methods: A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990–2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence. Results: After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36–48 months (p=0.72), or 108–156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12–24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60–96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis. Conclusions: The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Antalgic Therapies in Patients with Vertebral Bone Metastasis: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 3991
Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Metastasis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Vertebral Metastasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoran Yu ◽  
Ruogu Xu ◽  
Zhengchuan Zhang ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Feilong Deng
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

scholarly journals Do the Clinical Effects of Enamel Matrix Derivatives in Infrabony Defects Decrease Overtime? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 446-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabricio Batistin Zanatta ◽  
Fernanda Goulart de Souza ◽  
Tatiana Militz Perrone Pinto ◽  
Raquel Pippi Antoniazzi ◽  
Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Enamel Matrix ◽  
Results Of Treatment

Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated better results with enamel matrix derivative proteins (EMDP) as compared with open flap debridement (OFD) for the management of infrabony periodontal defects (IPD). The aim of this study was to determine whether these differences vary according to the follow-up and quality of the studies. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline/PubMed, Lilacs, Embase and Web of Science electronic databases were searched up to August 2013 for randomized clinical trials.Eligible outcomes were changes in probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL),gingival recession (GR) and bone changes (BC). Studies with follow-up of 12 months showed differences of 0.97 mm (CI95% 0.52 - 1.43) and 1.19 mm (CI95% 0.77 - 1.60) for PD and CAL, respectively, favorable for EMDP. Studies with follow-up ≥ 24 months presented advantages of 1.11 mm (CI95% 0.74 -1.48) for CAL and 0.83 mm (CI95% 0.19 -1.48) for PD,with use of EMDP. Considering the quality of studies, those with low risk of bias showed lower difference between groups, presenting 0.8 mm (CI95% 0.24-1.36) for CAL, favorable for EMDP and without differences for PS (0.51 mm, CI95% -0.21 - 1.23). In conclusion, follow-up time (< or > 2 years) and the risk of bias influence the results of treatment with EMDP in IPD.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care on functional decline and process outcomes among older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e050524
Author(s):  
Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Margaret O'Connor ◽  
Mairéad Conneely ◽  
Damien Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Decline ◽  
Index Admission ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Process Outcomes

IntroductionOlder adults are clinically heterogeneous and are at increased risk of adverse outcomes during hospitalisation due to the presence of multiple comorbid conditions and reduced homoeostatic reserves. Acute geriatric units (AGUs) are units designed with their own physical location and structure, which provide care to older adults during the acute phase of illness and are underpinned by an interdisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment model of care. This review aims to update and synthesise the totality of evidence related to the effectiveness of AGU care on clinical and process outcomes among older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints.DesignUpdated systematic review and meta-analysisMethods and analysisMEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library and Embase electronic databases will be systematically searched from 2008 to February 2021. Trials with a randomised design that deliver an AGU intervention to older adults admitted to hospital for acute medical complaints will be included. The primary outcome measure will be functional decline at discharge from hospital and at follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, cost of index admission, incidence of unscheduled hospital readmission, living at home (the inverse of death or institutionalisation combined; used to describe someone who is in their own home at follow‐up), mortality, cognitive function and patient satisfaction with index admission. Title and abstract screening of studies for full-text extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. The quality of evidence for outcomes reported will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. A pooled meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager, depending on the uniformity of the data.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as all data collected will be secondary data and will be analysed anonymously. The authors will present the findings of the review to a patient and public involvement stakeholder panel of older adults that has been established at the Ageing Research Centre in the University of Limerick. This will enable the views and opinions of older adults to be integrated into the discussion section of the paper.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237633.

scholarly journals The Use of Green Coffee Extract as a Weight Loss Supplement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igho Onakpoya ◽  
Rohini Terry ◽  
Edzard Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Green Coffee ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Using Data

The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of green coffee extract (GCE) as a weight loss supplement, using data from human clinical trials. Electronic and nonelectronic searches were conducted to identify relevant articles, with no restrictions in time or language. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Five eligible trials were identified, and three of these were included. All studies were associated with a high risk of bias. The meta-analytic result reveals a significant difference in body weight in GCE compared with placebo (mean difference: kg; 95%CI: , ). The magnitude of the effect is moderate, and there is significant heterogeneity amongst the studies. It is concluded that the results from these trials are promising, but the studies are all of poor methodological quality. More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document