BackgroundTo evaluate the effect of probiotic chewing tablets on early childhood caries development in preschool children living in a low socioeconomic multicultural area.MethodsThe investigation employed a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled design. The study group consisted of 138 healthy 2-3-year-old children that were consecutively recruited after informed parental consent. After enrollment, they were randomized to a test or a placebo group. The parents of the test group were instructed to give their child one chewing tablet per day containing three strains of live probiotic bacteria (ProBiora3®) and the placebo group got identical tablets without bacteria. The duration was one year and the prevalence and increment of initial and manifest caries lesions was examined at baseline and follow-up. All parents were thoroughly instructed to brush the teeth of their off-springs twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.ResultsThe groups were balanced at baseline and the attrition rate was 20 %. Around 2/3 of the children in both groups reported an acceptable compliance. The caries increment (Δds) was significantly lower in the test group when compared with the placebo group, 0.2 vs. 0.8 (p < 0.05). The risk reduction was 0.47 (95 % CI 0.24–0.98) and the number needed to treat close to five. No differences were displayed between the groups concerning presence of visible plaque or bleeding-on-brushing. No side effects were reported.ConclusionsThe results suggested that early childhood caries development could be reduced through administration of these probiotic chewing tablets as adjunct to daily use of fluoride toothpaste in preschool children. Further studies on a possible dose–response relationship seem justifiedTrial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01720771. First received: October 31, 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0096-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

AimTo examine whether self-reported treatments, workplace-oriented rehabilitation and change of occupation were associated with subsequent sickness absence and disability pension among long-term sick-listed for psychiatric disorders.DesignA prospective cohort study.Setting and participants5200 employees (80% from the Swedish municipalities and county councils and 20% manual workers from the Swedish industry) were randomly selected who in 1999 in the register of AFA Insurance had a new spell of long-term sickness absence due to a psychiatric disorder. Of these, 99 were excluded (duplicates and deaths, persons living abroad, with protected personal information), and 5101 received a questionnaire in 2001. 3053 individuals responded (60%). After the exclusion of employees with no sick leave in 1999 according to the Swedish social insurance agency, aged 62 years and older, with disability pension 1999–2001, no self-reported treatment, and with missing information on the covariates, our final study group was 2324 individuals. Logistic regression analyses were performed.Outcome measuresSickness absence (>90 days) and disability pension (>0 day).Results45% had sickness absence and 18% a new disability pension in 2002. Drug treatment and physiotherapy, respectively, were associated with increased odds of sickness absence (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.90; OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.69), and disability pension (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.41; OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.18). Workplace-oriented rehabilitation and change of occupation, respectively, reduced the odds of sickness absence (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.45).ConclusionsWe found a pattern of poorer outcome of drug treatment and physiotherapy compared with other treatments (psychotherapy, workplace-oriented rehabilitation and complementary or alternative medicine) in terms of increased odds of sickness absence and disability pension. Workplace-oriented rehabilitation and/or change of occupation were associated with reduced odds of sick leave. Studies with a randomised controlled trial design are needed to examine the effect on sick leave of a workplace-oriented intervention.

We compared the effects of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.25% with bupivacaine 0.25% on pain relief and motor block during labor, and on the neonate. Seventy-six full-term parturients in active labor requiring epidural analgesia were randomly allocated to receive either bupivacaine 0.25% or ropivacaine 0.25%. Fifteen minutes after a loading dose of 10 mL of the study drug, an epidural infusion with the same drug was started at 6-12 mL/h to maintain an adequate block. Top-up doses of 6-10 mL were given as required. At full cervical dilation, the epidural infusion was discontinued. The onset of pain relief (verbal scale), contraction pain (visual analog scale), intensity of motor block (modified Bromage scale), and duration of motor block were not statistically different between the groups. Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min after delivery were comparable. There was a higher proportion of the neonates in the ropivacaine group (26/31 = 84%) who had a neurologic and adaptive capacity score (NACS) > or = 35 2 h after delivery than in the bupivacaine group (18/29 = 62%). We conclude that ropivacaine 0.25% and bupivacaine 0.25% are equally effective for epidural pain relief during labor. Ropivacaine may have an advantage over bupivacaine regarding neonatal neurobehavioral performance during the first few hours after delivery, although further studies will be required to substantiate this.