BACKGROUNDMore than 20 years ago, it was hypothesized that exposure to prenatal and early postnatal environmental xenobiotics with the potential to disrupt endogenous hormone signaling might be on the causal path to cryptorchidism, hypospadias, low sperm count and testicular cancer. Several consensus statements and narrative reviews in recent years have divided the scientific community and have elicited a call for systematic transparent reviews. We aimed to fill this gap in knowledge in the field of male reproductive disorders.OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALEThe aim of this study was to systematically synthesize published data on the risk of cryptorchidism, hypospadias, low sperm counts and testicular cancer following in utero or infant exposure to chemicals that have been included on the European Commission's list of Category 1 endocrine disrupting chemicals defined as having documented adverse effects due to endocrine disruption in at least one intact organism.SEARCH METHODSA systematic literature search for original peer reviewed papers was performed in the databases PubMed and Embase to identify epidemiological studies reporting associations between the outcomes of interest and exposures documented by biochemical analyses of biospecimens including maternal blood or urine, placenta or fat tissue as well as amnion fluid, cord blood or breast milk; this was followed by meta-analysis of quantitative data.OUTCOMESThe literature search resulted in 1314 references among which we identified 33 papers(28 study populations) fulfilling the eligibility criteria. These provided 85 risk estimates of links between persistent organic pollutants and rapidly metabolized compounds (phthalates and Bisphenol A) and male reproductive disorders. The overall odds ratio (OR) across all exposures and outcomes was 1.11 (95% CI 0.91–1.35). When assessing four specific chemical subgroups with sufficient data for meta-analysis for all outcomes, we found that exposure to one of the four compounds, p,p′-DDE, was related to an elevated risk: OR 1.35 (95% CI 1.04–1.74). The data did not indicate that this increased risk was driven by any specific disorder.WIDER IMPLICATIONSThe current epidemiological evidence is compatible with a small increased risk of male reproductive disorders following prenatal and postnatal exposure to some persistent environmental chemicals classified as endocrine disruptors but the evidence is limited. Future epidemiological studies may change the weight of the evidence in either direction. No evidence of distortion due to publication bias was found, but exposure–response relationships are not evident. There are insufficient data on rapidly metabolized endocrine disruptors and on specific exposure–outcome relations. A particular data gap is evident with respect to delayed effects on semen quality and testicular cancer. Although high quality epidemiological studies are still sparse, future systematic and transparent reviews may provide pieces of evidence contributing to the narrative and weight of the evidence assessments in th...

The association between male infertility and increased risk of certain cancers is well studied. Less is known about the long-term risk of nonmalignant diseases in men with decreased fertility. A systemic literature review was performed on the epidemiologic evidence of male infertility as a precursor for increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality. PubMed and Embase were searched from January 1, 1980, to September 1, 2016, to identify epidemiological studies reporting associations between male infertility and the outcomes of interest. Animal studies, case reports, reviews, studies not providing an accurate reference group, and studies including infertility due to vasectomy or malignancy were excluded. The literature search resulted in 2,485 references among which we identified seven articles fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Of these, four articles were prospective (three on risk of mortality, one on risk of chronic diseases) and three were cross-sectional relating male infertility to the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The current epidemiological evidence is compatible with an association between male infertility and risk of chronic disease and mortality, but the small number of prospective studies and insufficient adjustment of confounders preclude strong statements about male infertility as precursor of these outcomes.

Protocols for implant dentistry, most frequently include periods until healing of the extraction sockets and osseointegration of the implant. Deductional thinking imply that patients would prefer if treatment time in implant dentistry were reduced. Aim What is the patient perception of immediate or early implant placement or loading in comparison with traditional, delayed placement, and/or loading assessed by patient‐reported outcome measures, as evidenced in randomized controlled clinical trials or prospective controlled studies? Material and methods A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search up to June 30. All hits were imported into Rayyan online software and analyzed by two authors for eligibility. Cochrane RoB2.0 and Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate risk of bias in the individual studies. Results Of the initially 1439 articles, 76 underwent full‐text analysis and finally 40 articles, representing 35 cohort studies, were included. The quality evaluation demonstrated some concerns among most of the studies. Conclusion a) There is no strong evidence to support that the time for implant placement or loading of implant‐supported single or short‐span reconstructions or overdentures influence patients´ discomfort, satisfaction with function or esthetics or overall satisfaction with the implant treatment. b) There is some evidence that studies including edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant‐supported full‐arch FDPs demonstrate more satisfied patients with immediate than for the early or delayed loaded implant reconstructions after short time, but the difference is not clear one year after treatment.

Aim The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: “In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?” Materials and methods A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966–2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long‐term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta‐analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral‐health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA. Conclusions There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin‐bonded FDPs.