Association between chewing dysfunctions and temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review.

Temporomandibular disorder (TMD) is an umbrella condition presenting several signs and symptoms including pain in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles, articular noises, earache, headache, irregular or restricted jaw function, chewing difficulty, and limited mouth opening. Such TMD impairment may cause disorders during the chewing process. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to assess chewing dysfunctions measured by sEMG, and their association with TMD. A combination and variation in the descriptors "temporomandibular joint disorders", "masticatory dysfunctions", and electromyography were used to perform the searches across databases. The databases chosen were: LILACS, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, grey literature was assessed using Google Scholar, ProQuest, and OpenGrey. Studies in adults that diagnosed TMD through the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD), Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) or Helkimo Protocol were selected. Furthermore, those studies should have evaluated chewing processes through surface electromyography (sEMG). Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed through the Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (MAStARI) tool. Eleven included studies shown significant results; however, they evaluated discrepant parameters, presented high inconsistency in the application, and had chosen different tasks to analyse the sEMG and hence, there was no consensus in the results of studies. In conclusion, strength of recommendations was very low due to a series of limitations on studies and it was not possible to made categorical statement about association between TMD and chewing dysfunctions in adults when parameters of sEMG were analysed.

Association between psychotropic medications and presence of sleep bruxism: A systematic review.

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies that investigated the association between use of psychotropic medications and presence of sleep bruxism (SB). Observational studies were selected in a two-phase process. Searches were performed on six electronic databases, and a grey literature search was conducted on three databases. SB diagnosis was based on questionnaires or clinical examinations; no polysomnography examinations were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Five analytical cross-sectional studies were included, evaluating antidepressants, anticonvulsants and psychostimulants. One study was judged as low risk of bias, three as moderate risk and one high risk. Antidepressants were evaluated in adult populations only; duloxetine (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.16; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] = 1.12-4.17), paroxetine (OR = 3.63; 95% CI = 2.15-6.13) and venlafaxine (OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.34-3.86) were positively associated with SB risk. No increased odds of SB were observed considering use of citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine and sertraline. With regard to anticonvulsants, only barbiturates were associated with SB in children (OR = 14.70; 95% CI = 1.85-116.90), while no increased odds were observed for benzodiazepine, carbamazepine and valproate. The only psychostimulant evaluated was methylphenidate, and an association with SB was observed in adolescents (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.03-2.68). Findings from this SR suggested that medications such as duloxetine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, barbiturates and methylphenidate might be associated with SB; however, overall quality of evidence was considered very low, and therefore, caution is recommended.

Technical quality of root canal treatment performed by undergraduate students using hand instrumentation: a meta-analysis.

The technical quality of root canal treatment (RCT) may impact on the outcome. The quality of education received during undergraduate school may be linked to the quality of treatment provided in general dental practice. In this context, the aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused questions: (i) What is the frequency of acceptable technical quality of root fillings, assessed radiographically, performed by undergraduate students? (ii) What are the most common errors assessed radiographically and reported in these treatments? For this purpose, articles that evaluated the quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students were selected. Data were collected based on predetermined criteria. The key features from the included studies were extracted. GRADE-tool assessed the quality of the evidence. MAStARI evaluated the methodological quality, and a meta-analysis on all studies was conducted. At the end of the screening, 24 articles were identified. Overall frequency of acceptable technical quality of root fillings was 48%. From this total, 52% related to anterior teeth, 49% to premolars and 26% to molars. The main procedural errors reported were ledge formation, furcation perforation, apical transportation and apical perforation. The heterogeneity amongst the studies was high (84-99%). Five studies had a high risk of bias, eight had a moderate risk, and 11 had low risk. The overall quality of evidence identified was very low. The conclusion was that technical quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students is low, which may reveal that endodontic education has limited achievement at undergraduate level. A plan to improve the quality of root fillings, and by extrapolation the overall quality of root canal treatment, should be discussed by the staff responsible for endodontic education and training.