Conflict of interest is not associated with positive conclusions in toothpaste trials: a systematic survey

Pediatric dentistry systematic reviews using the GRADE approach: methodological study

BACKGROUND

To assess the reporting of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach in systematic reviews of interventions in pediatric dentistry.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) in pediatric dentistry that reported the certainty of the evidence through the GRADE approach. Paired independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised the methodological quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. The certainty of the evidence was extracted for each outcome. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Around 28% of pediatric dentistry reviews of interventions used the GRADE approach (n = 24). Twenty reviews reported 112 evidence outcomes from RCTs and 13 from NRSIs using GRADE evidence profile tables. The methodological quality was high (16.7%), moderate (12.5%), low (37.5%), and critically low (33.3%), fulfilling the majority of the AMSTAR 2 criteria. The certainty of the evidence for outcomes generated from RCTs and NRSIs was very low (40.2% and 84.6%), low (33.1% and 7.7%), moderate (17.8% and 7.7%), and high (9.8% and 0.0%). The main reasons to downgrade the certainty were due to (for RCTs and NRSIs, respectively): risk of bias (68.8% and 84.6%), imprecision (67.8% and 100.0%), inconsistency (18.8% and 23.1%), indirectness (17.8% and 0.0%), and publication bias (7.1% and 0.0%).

CONCLUSION

The proportion of systematic reviews assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach was considered small, considering the total initial number of published pediatric dentistry reviews of intervention. The certainty of the evidence was mainly very low and low, and the main problems for downgrading the certainty of evidence were due to risk of bias and imprecision.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database #CRD42022365443.

Computational exploration of allosteric inhibitors targeting CDK4/CDK6 proteins: a promising approach for multi-target drug development

Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) play a pivotal role in orchestrating the intricate regulation of the cell cycle, a fundamental process governing cell growth and division. In particular, CDK4 and CDK6 are critical for the transition from the G1 phase to the S phase, where Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) replication occurs, and their dysregulation is linked to various diseases, notably cancer. While ATP-binding site inhibitors for CDKs are well-documented, this study focuses on uncovering allosteric inhibitors, providing a fresh perspective on CDK inhibition. Computational techniques were employed in this investigation, utilizing Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) for virtual screening of a drug-like compound library. Moreover, the stability of the most promising binding inhibitors was assessed through Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations and MMPBSA/MMGBSA analyses. The outcome reveals that three inhibitors (C1, C2, and C3) exhibited the strongest binding affinity for CDK4/CDK6, as corroborated by docking and simulation analyses. The computed binding energies ranged from -6.1 to -7.6 kcal/mol, underscoring the potency of these allosteric inhibitors. Notably, this study identifies key residues (PHE31, HIS95, HIS100, VAL101, ASP102, ASP104, and THR107) that play pivotal roles in mediating inhibitor binding within the allosteric sites. Among the findings, the C1-CDK4 complex and C2-CDK6 complex emerge as particularly promising inhibitors, exhibiting high binding energies, favorable interaction patterns, and sustained presence within the active site. This study contributes significantly to the pursuit of multi-target drugs against CDK4/CDK6 proteins, with potential implications for the development of innovative therapies across various disorders, including cancer and other cell cycle-related conditions.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

The efficacy of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush compared to a high-frequency sonic power toothbrush on parameters of dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To establish the efficacy of oscillating-rotating power toothbrush (OR-PTB) compared to high-frequency sonic power toothbrush (HFS-PTB) on improving parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation. Safety and participants' preference were secondary interests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched, up to April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (randomized)controlled clinical trials that evaluated healthy humans brushing with an OR-PTB compared to a HFS-PTB. Evaluation for a minimum of 4 weeks, of one or more of the following parameters: plaque index scores (PI), bleeding scores (BS), number of bleeding sites (NoB) and gingival index scores (GI).

RESULTS

Thirty two publications involving 38 comparisons were included after the independent screening. The descriptive analysis showed that in 54% of the comparisons, a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB was found for PI, BS and GI scores. The Quigley and Hein index showed a significant difference of means (DiffM) between the end scores (DiffM 0.13, 95% CI [0.05;0.21] p < 0.001), as well as for the Rustogi-modified Navy index (DiffM 0.01, 95% CI [0.01;0.03] p = 0.002). This is in line with the meta-analysis for BS (DiffM 0.09, 95% CI [0.03;0.14] p = 0.003), for which the results were in favour of the OR-PTB and considered potentially clinically relevant. NoB showed a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB for the end scores (DiffM 3.61, 95% CI [2.63;4.58] p < 0.00001). No difference in safety was indicated, 78% of participants preferred the OR-PTB.

CONCLUSION

For patients to maintain good plaque control and improve gingival health, there is a small but significant difference based on longer-term studies between OR-PTB and HFS-PTB. This difference is potentially clinically relevant.

Formulations of desensitizing toothpastes for dentin hypersensitivity: a scoping review

Objective:

This study aimed to review evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to describe: 1) the active ingredients and desensitizing toothpaste brands; 2) the evaluation of these active ingredients over time, and 3) the fluoride and abrasive content in the formulations designed to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH).

Methodology:

In total, 138 RCTs and their tested toothpastes were included. Searches were updated up to August 19, 2021. Formulations, reported brands, active ingredients over time, and type of fluoride (ionizable or ionic fluoride) and abrasive (calcium or silica-based) were analyzed (PROSPERO #CRD42018086815).

Results:

Our trials assessed 368 toothpaste formulations, including 34 placebo (9%), 98 control toothpastes with fluoride (27%), and 236 (64%) with active ingredients to treat DH. We tested the following active ingredients: potassium compounds (n=68, 19%), calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSP) (n=37, 10%), strontium compounds (n=28, 8%), arginine (n=29, 8%), stannous fluoride (SnF2) (n=21, 6%), hydroxyapatite (n=9, 2%), potassium combined with another active ingredient (n=19, 5%), inorganic salt compounds (n=11, 3%), citrate (n=5, 1%), formaldehyde (n=3, 1%), herbal (n=4, 1%), copolymer (n=1, 0.5%), and trichlorophosphate (TCP) (n=1, 0.5%). The number of toothpaste formulations increased since 1968, with the greatest increment after 2010. Most toothpastes described their type of fluoride as sodium monofluorphosphate (MFP) (n=105, 29%) and NaF (n=82, 22%), with silica-based (n=84, 23%) and calcium-based (n=64, 17%) abrasives.

Conclusion:

Patients and dentists enjoy an increasing number of brands and active ingredients to decide what desensitizing toothpaste to use. The most common types of fluoride are MFP and NaF.

Desensitizing Toothpastes for Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Network Meta-analysis

The goal of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the relative effects of toothpaste formulations for dentin hypersensitivity (DH), tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched 7 databases to February 2019. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. The outcome of interest was painful response measured through tactile, cold, and air stimuli. We conducted a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis using standardized mean difference (SMD) and their credible intervals (CIs) as the measure of effect for each pain stimuli. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 125 RCTs (12,541 patients). For tactile stimulus, the following active ingredients showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride with moderate certainty of evidence (SMD; 95% CI): potassium + stannous fluoride (SnF₂) (3.05; 1.69-4.41), calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSP) (2.14; 0.75-3.53), SnF₂ (2.02; 1.06-2.99), potassium + hydroxyapatite (2.47; 0.3-4.64), strontium (1.43; 0.46-2.41), and potassium (1.23; 0.48-1.98). For cold stimulus, CSP showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride (3.93; 0.34-7.53) with moderate certainty; for air stimulus, arginine (2.22; 1.45-2.99), potassium + hydroxyapatite (2.44; 0.33-4.55), potassium + SnF₂ (2.28; 0.87-3.69), CSP (1.98; 0.99-2.98), and SnF₂ (1.9; 1.03-2.77) showed large beneficial effects compared to fluoride with moderate to high certainty. Most toothpaste formulations showed evidence of superiority against placebo or fluorides (amine fluoride, sodium monofluorophosphate, or sodium fluoride). CSP was most beneficial for all 3 stimuli with high to moderate certainty. SnF₂ alone and potassium combined with SnF₂ or hydroxyapatite were beneficial for tactile and air stimulus with high to moderate certainty. Arginine was beneficial for air stimulus, and strontium and potassium were beneficial for tactile stimulus, with moderate certainty.

What is the effect of active ingredients in dentifrice on inhibiting the regrowth of overnight plaque? A systematic review

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to establish the adjuvant clinical effect of brushing with a dentifrice containing purported active ingredients as compared to a regular sodium fluoride dentifrice with respect to the inhibition of overnight dental plaque regrowth from studies with human participants.

Methods

MEDLINE‐PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched, up to June 2019. The inclusion criteria were controlled clinical trials with participants aged ≥ 18 years in good general health. Studies were included that evaluated the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice on the inhibition of overnight dental plaque regrowth when an active ingredient was added to the dentifrice as compared to a common sodium fluoride product. Data were extracted from the eligible studies, the risk of bias was assessed, and a meta‐analysis was performed where feasible.

Result

Independent screening of 213 unique papers resulted in 10 eligible publications that provided 14 comparisons. Stannous fluoride and triclosan dentifrices were found as the active ingredients. The descriptive analysis indicated that all, but two comparisons demonstrated an additional effect on the active‐ingredient dentifrice. The meta‐analysis supported and strengthened these findings. It showed that when plaque was scored digitally, a DiffM was −3.15(95% CI [−4.61:‐1.69], P < .001, prediction interval [−5.07;‐1.24]). When plaque was scored clinically, the difference of means (DiffM) was −0.33(95% CI [−0.49:‐0.16], P < .001, prediction interval [−0.87; 0.21]).

Conclusion

The results of this review demonstrate moderate‐quality evidence that brushing with an active‐ingredient dentifrice with stannous fluoride or triclosan does provide an added clinically relevant effect concerning plaque inhibition capabilities that surpass the effect of a regular sodium fluoride dentifrice.