Publication of statistically significant research findings in prosthodontics &amp; implant dentistry in the context of other dental specialties

J Clinic Periodontology

Hagner²,

Nogueira

et al. 2017

Self Cite

146

121

BACKGROUND: The objective of this systematic review was to systematically investigate whether there is an association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and oral health. METHODS: Literature searches for randomized and non-randomized studies were performed up to January 2017. Risk of bias within studies was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. Across-studies risk of bias was assessed with the GRADE framework. Quantitative synthesis was conducted with random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 9 cross-sectional studies including 1297 patients were included. IBD was associated with increased risk of periodontitis (332 more patients per 1000 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI): 257-388 patients; p < 0.001) compared to non-IBD patients. Additionally, the Decayed-Missing-Filled-Teeth index of IBD patients was significantly worse than non-IBD patients (mean difference: 3.85; 95% CI: 2.36-5.34; p = 0.005). Patients with ulcerative colitis had considerably worse oral health for most of the assessed factors, while the quality of overall evidence ranged from high to low, due to the observational nature of contributing studies. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory bowel disease was associated with significantly higher risk of periodontitis and worse oral health compared to non-IBD patients. However, longitudinal studies are needed in order to establish a causality link between IBD and periodontal disease.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inflammatory bowel disease and oral health: systematic review and a meta‐analysis

J Clinic Periodontology

Hagner²,

Nogueira

et al. 2017

Self Cite

146

121

“…Additionally, the fact that only a subpart of all planned subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses could be ultimately conducted (Appendix ) means that the results' robustness might be compromised. Furthermore, mostly nonrandomized trials were identified from the search and were included in the analyses, which could potentially influence the results . Finally, as only patients from university clinics and only a handful of countries were included in the controlled trials, the generalizability of the review's conclusions might be limited to similar patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of orthodontic treatment on the subgingival microbiota: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Orthod Craniofacial Res

Xavier

Cobourne

et al. 2018

Self Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to assess qualitative changes induced by fixed appliance orthodontic treatment on the subgingival microbiota. Seven databases were searched up to August 2017 for randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies assessing the effect of orthodontic appliances on the subgingival bacteria in human patients. After elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random-effects meta-analyses of relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed. According to controlled studies, the presence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in the subgingival crevicular fluid of orthodontic patients was increased 3-6 months after fixed appliance insertion compared to untreated patients (2 studies; RR = 15.54; 95% CI = 3.19-75.85). There was still increased subgingival prevalence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (3 studies; RR = 3.98; 95% CI = 1.23-12.89) and Tannerella forsythia in orthodontic patients up to 6 months after appliance removal compared to untreated patients. However, caution is warranted due to high risk of bias and imprecision. Insertion of orthodontic fixed appliances seems to be associated with a qualitative change of subgingival microbiota, which reverts to some extent back to normal in the first months after appliance removal. However, there is limited evidence on the timing and extent of these changes.

“…However, certain limitations also exist. First and foremost, this systematic review included only nonrandomized trials that are at higher risk of bias than randomized ones (Papageorgiou, Kloukos, Petridis & Pandis, 2015b). As the scope of the review pertained more to adverse effects and diagnosis, nonrandomized designs might be applicable, but the vast majority of included studies (85%) were retrospective and therefore at higher risk of bias than prospective studies (Papageorgiou, Xavier, Cobourne, 2015).…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency of infraposition and missing contact points in implant‐supported restorations within natural dentitions over time: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Eliades

Hämmerle

2018

Self Cite

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to assess clinical evidence on adverse effects of osseointegrated implants placed among natural teeth of a residual dentition. Methods Seven databases were searched without restrictions up to January 2018 for clinical studies on implant infraposition (IIP) or proximal contact point (PCP) loss to the adjacent teeth. After duplicate selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, random‐effects meta‐analyses of odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed, followed by meta‐regression and sensitivity analyses. Results A total of 27 nonrandomized studies with 1,572 patients (mean age 42.2 years/51.2% female) followed up to 18.5 years after implant placement were included. The pooled %prevalence of IIP was 50.5% (nine studies; 95% CI = 26.3–74.5%), and the pooled IIP extent was 0.58 mm (six studies; 95% CI = 0.33–0.83 mm), while IIP > 1 mm was seen for 20.8% of placed implants (five studies; 95% CI = 8.3–37.1%), and male patients were less prone to IIP than female patients (three studies; OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.10–0.88; p = 0.03). The pooled %prevalence of PCP loss was 46.3% (nine studies; 95% CI = 32.3–60.6%), with increase through observation time (two studies; OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.03–1.16; p = 0.004) and predilection for mesial PCPs (five studies; OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.06–4.77; p = 0.03). However, the quality of evidence was very low due to bias. Conclusions Patients and doctors need to be aware that long‐term adverse effects of dental implants among natural teeth can be observed in terms of IIP and PCP loss to the adjacent teeth.