Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are usually placed by elevating a soft tissue flap, but in some instances, they can also be placed flapless reducing patient discomfort. Several flap and suturing techniques have been proposed. Soft tissues are often manipulated and augmented for aesthetic reasons. It is often recommended that implants are surrounded by a sufficient width of attached/keratinized mucosa to improve their long-term prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether (1a) flapless procedures are beneficial for patients, and (1b) which is the ideal flap design; whether (2a) soft tissue correction/augmentation techniques are beneficial for patients, and (2b) which are the best techniques; whether (3a) techniques to increase the perimplant keratinized mucosa are beneficial for patients, and (3b) which are the best techniques; and (4) which are the best suturing techniques/materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues in relation to dental implants. Outcome measures were: prosthetic and implant failures, aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists, biological complications, postoperative pain, patient preference, ease of maintenance by patient, and width of the attached/keratinized mucosa.

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. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight potentially eligible RCTs were identified and five trials including 140 patients in total were included. Two trials (100 patients) compared flapless placement of dental implants with conventional flap elevation, two trials (20 patients) crestal versus vestibular incisions, and one trial (20 patients) Erbium:YAG laser versus flap elevation at the second-stage surgery for implant exposure. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with laser induced statistically significant less postoperative pain than flap elevation. There were no other statistically significant differences for any of the remaining analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Flapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in adequately selected patients. There is insufficient reliable evidence to provide recommendations on which are the best incision/suture techniques/materials, or whether techniques to correct/augment perimplant soft tissues or to increase the width of keratinized/attached mucosa are beneficial to patients or not. Properly designed and conducted RCTs are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement

BACKGROUND

Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same 2-piece osseointegrated root-form dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications.

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. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs were identified and two trials including 45 patients in total were included. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw reliable conclusions, however it appears that the two procedures did not show clinical significant differences. If these preliminary results will be confirmed by more robust trials, a 1-stage procedure might be preferable since it avoids one minor surgical intervention and shortens the waiting time to provide the final restoration. There might be specific situations though, such as when optimal implant stability is not obtained at placement or when barriers are used in conjunction with implants, in which a 2-stage approach might be preferable.

Interventions for treating oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral candidiasis, remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral candidiasis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. The outcomes were eradication of oral candidiasis, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. Risk ratios were calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving 658 patients, satisfied the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Only two agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for eradicating oral candidiasis. A drug absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, ketoconazole, was more beneficial than placebo in eradicating oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR) = 3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 8.88) and clotrimazole, at a higher dose of 50 mg was more effective than a lower 10 mg dose in eradicating oral candidiasis, when assessed mycologically (RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.60). Of the five trials included in these meta-analyses, three were at high risk of bias and two of moderate risk of bias. Another trial demonstrated no statistically significant difference between a 10 mg dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, and placebo. No differences were found when comparing different absorbed drugs; and comparing absorbed drugs with drugs which are not absorbed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that the absorbed drug, ketoconazole, may eradicate oral candidiasis and that a higher dose of the partially absorbed drug, clotrimazole, may give greater benefit than a lower 10 mg dose, however, researchers may wish to prevent rather than treat oral candidiasis. Further well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of old and new interventions for treating oral candidiasis are needed.

Pulp management for caries in adults: maintaining pulp vitality

BACKGROUND

There is a range of treatment options for the management of the pulp in extensively decayed teeth. These include direct and indirect pulp capping, pulpotomy or pulpectomy. If the tooth is symptomatic or if there are periapical bone changes, then endodontic treatment is required. However, if the tooth is asymptomatic but the caries is extensive, there is no consensus as to the best method of management. In addition, there has been a recent move towards using alternative materials and methods such as the direct or indirect placement of bonding agents and mineral trioxide aggregate. Most studies have investigated the management of asymptomatic carious teeth with or without an exposed dental pulp using various capping materials (e.g. calcium hydroxide, Ledermix, Triodent, Biorex, etc.). However, there is no long term data regarding the outcome of management of asymptomatic, carious teeth according to different regimens.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of techniques used to treat asymptomatic carious teeth and maintain pulp vitality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the following databases were undertaken: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to week 4, February 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 13 March 2006), National Research Register (March 2006), Science Citation Index - SCISEARCH (1981 to March 2006). Detailed search strategies were developed for each database. Handsearching and screening of reference lists were undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Asymptomatic vital permanent teeth with extensive caries were included. Studies were those which compared techniques to maintain pulp vitality. Outcome measures included clinical success and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by three review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Only four RCTs were identified. Interventions examined included: Ledermix, glycerrhetinic acid/antibiotic mix, zinc oxide eugenol, calcium hydroxide, Cavitec, Life, Dycal, potassium nitrate, dimethyl isosorbide, and polycarboxylate cement. Only one study showed a statistically significant finding; potassium nitrate/dimethyl isosorbide/polycarboxylate cement resulted in fewer clinical symptoms than potassium nitrate/polycarboxylate cement or polycarboxylate cement alone when used as a capping material for carious pulps.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It was disappointing that there were so few studies which could be considered as being suitable for inclusion in this review. The findings from this review do not suggest that there should be any significant change from accepted conventional practice procedures when the pulp of the carious tooth is considered. Further well designed RCTs are needed to investigate the potential of contemporary materials which may be suitable when used in the management of carious teeth. It is recognised that it is difficult to establish the 'ideal' clinical study when ethical approval for new materials must be sought and strict attention to case selection, study protocol and interpretation of data is considered. It is also not easy to recruit sufficient numbers of patients meeting the necessary criteria.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants

BACKGROUND

To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated dental implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediately and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles (lower jaws) of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times 6 months to 1 year after loading.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow up of 6 months to 1 year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants immediately (within 1 week); early (between 1 week to 2 months); and conventionally loaded (after 2 months). Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were identified and 11 trials including 300 patients in total were included. Six trials compared immediate versus conventional loading, three early versus conventional loading and two immediate versus early loading. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to successfully load dental implants immediately or early after their placement in selected patients, though not all clinicians may achieve optimal results when loading the implant immediately. A high degree of primary implant stability (high value of insertion torque) seems to be one of the prerequisites for a successful immediate/early loading procedure. More well designed RCTs are needed. Priority should be given to trials comparing immediately versus early loaded implants to improve patient satisfaction and decrease treatment time. These trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for treating oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

Testing the effect of including oral health in general health checks for elderly patients in medical practice--a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To test the feasibility and effectiveness of an oral health referral process for elderly patients (aged 75 years or over) attending a preventive health check (PHC) with their general medical practitioner.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the process in increasing dental attendance at baseline and 6 months after the intervention. To identify key characteristics of those who accepted an oral health visit (OHV). To determine the proportion of people attending the OHV who required treatment and subsequently attended a dentist.

SETTING

Three general medical practices in east Cheshire, UK.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

METHOD

Elderly patients attending their general medical practice for PHCs were randomly assigned to a test group, who were invited to attend for an OHV, and to a control group, who received no intervention. Six months after the PHC the effectiveness of the process was measured.

RESULTS

Some 50% of those invited for an OHV accepted. Those accepting were more likely to be edentulous, wear dentures or have a current oral health problem, than those declining. Regression analysis showed the best predictors of acceptance to be having a current dental problem or pain and not having a regular dentist. The mean time since their last dental visit was 8.1 years which was significantly longer than those declining the OHV. 63% of individuals attending the OHV were assessed as having a realistic treatment need and 70% of those referred went on to complete the course of treatment. In the test group a highly significant increase in reported dental visiting was found at sixth month evaluation. The primary care staff were happy to include the dental checklist and felt it was a valuable addition to the PHC.

CONCLUSIONS

The offer of an OHV was taken up most readily by those with current oral problems, or pain and those with no regular dentist. The inclusion of a dental checklist within the PHC for elderly patients together with help with arranging a dental appointment shows promise as a way of ensuring the dental needs of this group are met.

Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent and treat them. One of these side effects is oral candidiasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions (which may include placebo or no treatment) for the prevention of oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PAPAS Trials Registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, SIGLE and LILACS were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches: June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral candidiasis; primary outcome - prevention of oral candidiasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were recorded on the following secondary outcomes if present: relief of pain, amount of analgesia, relief of dysphagia, incidence of systemic infection, duration of stay in hospital (days), cost of oral care, patient quality of life, death, use of empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity and compliance. Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random-effects metaregression analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving 4226 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Drugs absorbed and partially absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract were found to prevent oral candidiasis when compared to a placebo, or a no treatment control group, with RR for absorbed drugs = 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.78). For absorbed drugs in populations with an incidence of 20% (mid range of results in control groups), this implies a NNT of 9 (95% CI 7 to 13) patients need to be treated to avoid one patient getting oral candidiasis. There was no significant benefit shown for drugs not absorbed from the GI tract.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence, from randomised controlled trials, that drugs absorbed or partially absorbed from the GI tract prevent oral candidiasis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. There is also evidence that these drugs are significantly better at preventing oral candidiasis than drugs not absorbed from the GI.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants)

BACKGROUND

Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone height might be maintained thus possibly improving the aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures of the immediately placed implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate success, function, complications and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preference RCT evaluating immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs were included. One RCT compared immediate implants placed in periapical infected sites versus delayed implants in 50 patients and after 1 year found no statistically significant differences. The second RCT compared immediate-delayed versus immediate implants in 46 patients. After 1 year and a half there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed by the patient and the papilla height assessed by the dentist. However, patients in the delayed group perceiving the period between tooth extraction and insertion of the crown significantly longer than patients in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference of VAS -20.30 (95% CI -33.36 to -7.24). There was also statistically significantly higher patient satisfaction in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference (VAS) -6.51 (95% CI -12.63 to -0.39). An independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate in the immediate-delayed group, with risk ratio (RR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.72).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite that the evidence is derived from only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, it is possible to suggest that immediate implants and immediate-delayed implants may offer some advantages over conventional implants in healed sites in terms of patient satisfaction and aesthetics possibly by preserving alveolar bone. Immediate implants can work and are able to shorten treatment periods, however properly designed RCTs are still needed to fully evaluate the potential advantages and risks of this treatment modality since more complications and failures may occur.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis

BACKGROUND

One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants.

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. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: 1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; 2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; 3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; 4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; 5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed.

The impact of fixed orthodontic appliances on daily life

OBJECTIVE

i) To develop a measure of the impact of fixed orthodontic appliances on daily life. ii) To assess the impact of fixed appliances over time after initial appliance placement. iii) To investigate factors that may influence the impact of fixed appliances (age, gender and socioeconomic status).

RESEARCH DESIGN

Questionnaire.

CLINICAL SETTING

University Dental Hospital and Hope Hospital, Manchester.

SAMPLE

Sixty-six patients, whose orthodontic appliances had just been placed. Twenty-eight patients whose orthodontic appliances were in place for at least six months were used for the reliability study.

METHOD

The Impact of Fixed Appliances Questionnaire was developed using standard qualitative methods and pre-tested on 10 patients. This resulted in a questionnaire with nine conceptual impact sub-scales: aesthetic, functional limitation, dietary, oral hygiene, maintenance, physical, social, time constraints and travel/cost. The questionnaire was piloted on 66 patients, at the first, second and third visits after their fixed appliance had been placed, to assess the impact of fixed appliances over time. Questionnaire reliability, over a one-month time interval, was assessed on 40 patients who had been in treatment for at least six months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Impact of fixed appliances on daily life.

RESULTS

The internal reliability of the questionnaire ranged from moderate to very good (Cronbach's alpha 0.56-0.89). Test-retest reliability was stable for most subscales (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.26-0.65). The questionnaire was said to have face validity and also content validity because of the method of questionnaire development through interviewing children with fixed appliances. None of the subscales scores reduced over time except aesthetic impact (p< 0.05) but this was probably not a clinically significant change. Age was the predominant variable to influence the impact of fixed appliances with younger children being less affected during their daily life (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire developed in this study is a reliable tool for assessing the impact of fixed appliances on the daily life of children. It is unlikely that the impact of fixed appliances on daily life reduces as the patient progresses through treatment. Younger patients are probably more adaptable to treatment with fixed appliances, in terms of reduced impact on daily life, so arguably treatment should be started as early as possible. This information could also be used to educate, reassure and motivate patients at the start of treatment.

Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects

BACKGROUND

Conventional treatment of destructive periodontal (gum) disease arrests the disease but does not usually regain the bone support or connective tissue lost in the disease process. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a surgical procedure that specifically aims to regenerate the periodontal tissues when the disease is advanced and could overcome some of the limitations of conventional therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of GTR in the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects measured against conventional surgery (open flap debridement (OFD)) and factors affecting outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted an electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2004. Handsearching included Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles up to April 2004. In addition, we contacted experts/groups/companies involved in surgical research to find other trials or unpublished material or to clarify ambiguous or missing data and posted requests for data on two periodontal electronic discussion groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 months duration comparing guided tissue regeneration (with or without graft materials) with open flap debridement for the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects. Furcation involvements and studies specifically treating aggressive periodontitis were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of possible studies and data extraction was conducted independently. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components and agreement determined by Kappa scores. Methodological quality was used in sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the conclusions. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as mean differences (MD and 95% CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR and 95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes calculated using random-effects models. Any heterogeneity was investigated. The primary outcome measure was change in clinical attachment.

MAIN RESULTS

The search produced 626 titles, of these 596 were clearly not relevant to the review. The full text of 32 studies of possible relevance was obtained and 15 studies were excluded. Therefore 17 RCTs were included in this review, 16 studies testing GTR alone and two testing GTR+bone substitutes (one study had both test treatment arms).No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow up was not complete. For attachment level change, the mean difference between GTR and OFD was 1.22 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.80 to 1.64, chi squared for heterogeneity 69.1 (df = 15), P < 0.001, I(2) = 78%) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.61, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.01 (df = 1), P = 0.91). GTR showed a significant benefit when comparing the numbers of sites failing to gain 2 mm attachment with risk ratio 0.54 (95% CI Random Effects: 0.31 to 0.96, chi squared for heterogeneity 8.9 (df = 5), P = 0.11). The number needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 33), based on an incidence of 28% of sites in the control group failing to gain 2 mm or more of attachment. For baseline incidences in the range of the control groups of 3% and 55% the NNTs are 71 and 4. Probing depth reduction was greater for GTR than OFD: 1.21 mm (95% CI 0.53 to 1.88, chi squared for heterogeneity 62.9 (df = 10), P < 0.001, I(2) = 84%) or GTR + bone substitutes, weighted mean difference 1.24 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.03 (df = 1), P = 0.85). For gingival recession, a statistically significant difference between GTR and open flap debridement controls was evident (mean difference 0.26 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.08, 0.43, chi squared for heterogeneity 2.7 (df = 8), P = 0.95), with a greater change in recession from baseline for the control group. Regarding hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry, a statistically significant greater gain was found for GTR compared with open flap debridement. This amounted to a weighted mean difference of 1.39 mm (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.85 (df = 2), P = 0.65). For GTR + bone substitutes the difference was greater, with mean difference 3.37 mm (95% CI 3.14 to 3.61). Adverse effects were generally minor although with an increased treatment time for GTR. Exposure of the barrier membrane was frequently reported with a lack of evidence of an effect on healing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting. There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment

BACKGROUND

Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation.

OBJECTIVES

General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

(A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 1 October 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 330 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. No bone promoting molecule has been shown to be effective or necessary in conjunction with dental implant treatment. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces

BACKGROUND

Retention is the phase of orthodontic treatment that attempts to keep teeth in the corrected positions after treatment with orthodontic (dental) braces. Without a phase of retention there is a tendency for the teeth to return to their initial position (relapse). To prevent relapse almost every patient who has orthodontic treatment will require some type of retention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different retention strategies used to stabilise tooth position after orthodontic braces.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's (OHG) Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching of orthodontic journals was undertaken in keeping with the Cochrane OHG search programme. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on children and adults, who have had retainers fitted or adjunctive procedures undertaken, following orthodontic treatment with braces to prevent relapse. The outcomes were: how well the teeth were stabilised, survival of retainers, adverse effects on oral health and quality of life.

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. As no two studies compared the same retention strategies (interventions) it was not possible to combine the results of any studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. These trials all compared different interventions: circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) combined with full-time removable retainer versus a full-time removable retainer alone; CSF combined with a nights-only removable retainer versus a nights-only removable retainer alone; removable Hawley retainer versus a clear overlay retainer; multistrand wire retainer versus a ribbon-reinforced resin bonded retainer; and three types of fixed retainers versus a removable retainer. There was weak unreliable evidence, based on data from one trial, that there was a statistically significant increase in stability in both the mandibular (lower) (P < 0.001) and maxillary (upper) anterior segments (P < 0.001) when the CSF was used, compared with when it was not used. There was also weak, unreliable evidence that teeth settle quicker with a Hawley retainer than with a clear overlay retainer after 3 months. The quality of the trial reports was generally poor.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient research data on which to base our clinical practice on retention at present. There is an urgent need for high quality randomised controlled trials in this crucial area of orthodontic practice.

Teledentistry for screening new patient orthodontic referrals. Part 1: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to evaluate the validity of a teledentistry system for screening new patient orthodontic referrals. The secondary aims were to evaluate whether the teledentistry system affected i) referral rates ii) inappropriate referral rates iii) number of failed appointments.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SAMPLE

Fifteen dental practices in Greater Manchester, UK, were randomly allocated to either a teledentistry test group (n = 8) or a control group (n = 7). They referred 327 patients over a 15 month period.

METHOD

Practitioners in the test group referred patients to one of two consultant orthodontists via a 'store and forward' teledentistry system consisting of photographs sent as email attachments. The decision to accept or not accept a referral on this basis was compared with the same decision choice when the same patient was subsequently seen on a new patient clinic. This measured the validity of the system with the clinic's decision used as the gold standard. Patients in the control group were referred using the usual letter system. Referral rates, inappropriate referrals and number of failed appointments were then compared between the teledentistry and control groups.

RESULTS

The sensitivity (true positive value) of the teledentistry system was high at 0.80 with a positive predictive value of 0.92. The specificity (true negative value) was slightly lower at 0.73 with a negative predictive value of 0.50. The inappropriate referral rate for the teledentistry group was 8.2% and for the controls 26.2% (p = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference in clinic attendance between teledentistry and control groups (p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Teledentistry is a valid system for positively identifying appropriate new patient orthodontic referrals. However, there is a risk that a patient is not accepted on the teledentistry system who would benefit from a full clinical examination. Teledentistry could be a significant factor in reducing the inappropriate referral rate. Patient participation in a teledentistry system does not appear to mean they are any more likely to attend their hospital appointment.

A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics

AIM

To measure and compare the relationships between image quality and X-ray exposure for three types of intraoral imaging system (conventional film, phosphor plate system and CCD-based system).

METHODOLOGY

Kodak 'Insight' F-speed film, Digora FMX (phosphor plate system) and Visualix USB (CCD system) were used to produce series of radiographic images of two tooth-bearing jaw specimens (maxillary molar and mandibular molar regions) at a range of X-ray exposures from 10 ms to 2000 ms (all at 6 mA and 60 kV). Digital images were viewed from a computer monitor and films viewed on a conventional light box. Five observers scored each image using a five-point subjective image quality scale (0-4).

RESULTS

Optimum image quality (4) was seen for conventional film. Neither digital system achieved this score at any exposure, achieving in both cases a maximum mean score of 3.1 (adequate visualization). The two digital systems, however, provided adequate visualization at substantially lower exposure times. Dose reduction over conventional film for maximum quality images with Visualix USB was 20%, but for Digora FMX it was 70%. All three systems gave acceptable (quality score of two or higher) images over a broad range of exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of subjective image quality, F-speed film performed better than the two digital systems, but this must be weighed against the ability of the two digital systems to give adequate image quality at lower radiation doses.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years.

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 authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest and maxillary sinus to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants are also needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilize the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that in some situations bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed denture could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for using zygomatic implants could be the need of maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for severely resorbed maxillae.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) including patients with severely resorbed maxillae who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus patients treated with conventional dental implants in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures having a follow up of at least 1 year. Outcome measures considered were: prosthesis and implant failures, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is the need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.

Milk fluoridation: a comparison of dental health in two school communities in England

OBJECTIVE

To compare levels of caries experience in children attending schools in Wirral that have a fluoridated milk programme with children in a similar community which does not have a fluoridated milk programme.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross sectional study measuring caries experience in first permanent molars. Children were examined on an 'intention to treat' basis and the effect of clustering of children within schools was taken into account.

PARTICIPANTS

690 children in Wirral (test group) and 1,835 children in Sefton (comparison group) were examined for caries experience (DMFT/DT/DFS) in 2003. The mean ages of the children examined in the test and comparison groups were 10.79 and 10.83 years respectively.

RESULTS

Mean DMFT/DT/DFS values were 1.01/0.59/1.20 respectively in the test group and 1.46/1.02/1.89 respectively in the comparison group. Multiple linear regression analysis taking clustering of children within schools into account and with the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 as an explanatory variable gave the coefficients and p-values for DMFT/DT/DFS of 0.49 (p < 0.001)/0.43 (p < 0.001)/0.74 (p < 0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSION

A difference in children with caries experience of 13% and a difference in children with active decay of 16% was found when a district with a community fluoridated milk programme was compared with a district without a fluoridated milk programme.

Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health

BACKGROUND

Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17/06/2004) and Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 2 June 2004); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 2 2004) and CINAHL (January 1982 to week 2 June 2004). Manufacturers were contacted for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected for the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants - general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention - unsupervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors independently extracted information. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for quality and publication bias. For discussion purposes SMD was translated into percentage change.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials, involving 3855 participants, provided data. Brushes with a rotation oscillation action removed plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short term and reduced gingivitis scores in studies over 3 months. For plaque at 1 to 3 months the SMD was -0.43 (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.14), for gingivitis SMD -0.62 (95% CI: -0.90 to -0.34) representing an 11% difference on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Loe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the SMD for plaque was -1.29 (95% CI: -2.67 to 0.08) and for gingivitis was -0.51 (-0.76 to -0.25) representing a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay bleeding on probing index. There was heterogeneity between the trials for the short-term follow up. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered designs were as consistently superior to manual toothbrushes.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and temporary.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.