Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials

The interaction between gut microbiome and bone health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review critically examines interconnected health domains like gut microbiome, bone health, interleukins, chronic periodontitis, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), offering insights into fundamental mechanisms and clinical implications, contributing significantly to healthcare and biomedical research.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review explores the relationship between gut microbiome and bone health, a growing area of study. It provides insights into skeletal integrity and potential therapeutic avenues. The review also examines interleukins, chronic periodontitis, and COVID-19, highlighting the complexity of viral susceptibility and immune responses. It highlights the importance of understanding genetic predispositions and immune dynamics in the context of disease outcomes. The review emphasizes experimental evidence and therapeutic strategies, aligning with evidence-based medicine and personalized interventions. This approach offers actionable insights for healthcare practitioners and researchers, paving the way for targeted therapeutic approaches and improved patient outcomes.

SUMMARY

The implications of these findings for clinical practice and research underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to healthcare that considers the complex interactions between genetics, immune responses, oral health, and systemic diseases. By leveraging advances in biomedical research, clinicians can optimize patient care and improve health outcomes across diverse patient populations.

The reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials in oral implantology: A methodological study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in oral implantology published during the past 10 years, and to investigate whether there was any improvement over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed for SMTs in oral implantology published during 2011-20. We used CONSORT 2010, its extension for within-person trial (WPT), and an SMT-specific methodological checklist to assess trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Binary scores were given to each item, and total scores of TRQ (range 0-32), WRQ (0-15), and SMQ (0-3) were calculated for each study. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to compare the quality of SMTs published before (2011-17) and after (2018-20) the release of CONSORT for WPT.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine SMTs were included. The mean TRQ, WRQ, and SMQ were 16.4, 6.7, and 1.3, respectively. Less than one-third (n = 25, 31.6%) reported the rationale for using split-mouth designs. Only 4 (5.1%) trials adequately conducted sample size calculation, and 40 (50.6%) used appropriate statistical methods that considered dependency and clustering of data. In multivariable analyses, compared with 2011-17, studies published in 2018-20 had significantly higher TRQ (p = .044), while WRQ and SMQ did not show improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting and methodological quality of SMTs in oral implantology need to be improved. Joint efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodology of SMTs in this field.

LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY MAY REDUCE THE RISK OF SEVERE ORAL MUCOSITIS IN PATIENTS RECEIVING CHEMOTHERAPY OR RADIOTHERAPY

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Peng et al. Low-level laser therapy in the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020 Oct;130(4):387-397.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.05.014. Epub 2020 Jun 5.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Sichuan University Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund (grant No. 19 XJ0008) TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Prediction intervals should be included in meta-analyses published in dentistry

This focus article aims to highlight the value of reporting prediction intervals (PIs) in random effects meta-analysis and to assess the prevalence of PI-reporting in periodontology and implant dentistry meta-analyses. We searched in the PubMed database for meta-analyses published in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. We selected meta-analyses related to primary outcomes with at least three trials. Additionally, we extracted information on the type of the meta-analysis model (fixed or random) and whether the random effects meta-analyses included PIs in addition to the 95% confidence intervals. Three-hundred and forty-nine meta-analyses were found in 94 systematic reviews. Two-hundred and sixty-three (75.4%) subgroup and full meta-analyses used the random-effects model, 81 (23.2%) used fixed-effect methods, and 5 (1.4%) did not specify the model used. In 75 systematic reviews, we found 231 meta-analyses with three or more trials (173 full meta-analyses and 58 subgroup meta-analyses). Only one systematic review reported PIs. Interpretation of the results of random effects meta-analyses which ignore heterogeneity can be misleading. Heterogeneity should be explored, and two common approaches include subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Random effects meta-analyses should include PIs because they convey the extent of heterogeneity in treatment effects across studies in a clinically relevant context.