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.
The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for pain relief of burning mouth syndrome (BMS). Five databases and gray literature were searched. Independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was pain relief or burning sensation, and the secondary outcomes were side effects, quality of life, salivary flow, and TNF-α and interleukin 6 levels. Four comparable interventions were grouped into different network geometries to ensure the transitivity assumption for pain: photobiomodulation therapy, alpha-lipoic acid, phytotherapics, and anxiolytics/antidepressants. Mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcomes. The minimal important difference to consider a therapy beneficial against placebo was an MD of at least −1 for relief of pain. To interpret the results, the GRADE approach for NMA was used with a minimally contextualized framework and the magnitude of the effect. Forty-four trials were included (24 in the NMA). The anxiolytic (clonazepam) probably reduces the pain of BMS when compared with placebo (MD, −1.88; 95% CI, −2.61 to −1.16; moderate certainty). Photobiomodulation therapy (MD, −1.90; 95% CI, −3.58 to −0.21) and pregabalin (MD, −2.40; 95% CI, −3.49 to −1.32) achieved the minimal important difference of a beneficial effect with low or very low certainty. Among all tested treatments, only clonazepam is likely to reduce the pain of BMS when compared with placebo. The majority of the other treatments had low and very low certainty, mainly due to imprecision, indirectness, and intransitivity. More randomized controlled trials comparing treatments against placebo are encouraged to confirm the evidence and test possible alternative treatments (PROSPERO CRD42021255039).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.