Genetic polymorphisms and protein levels in vocal fold leukoplakia: a systematic review.

Vocal fold leukoplakia (VFL) has a risk of malignant transformation. Therefore, patients can have symptoms such as dysphonia, vocal strain, difficulty breathing, and dysphagia. Additionally, there is a genetic predisposition that can be associated with genetic polymorphisms. We aimed to evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms and protein levels in the etiology of VFL. Our study followed the PRISMA checklist and was registered on PROSPERO database. The questions were: "Are genetic polymorphisms involved in the etiology of VFL? Are protein levels altered in patients with VFL?". Eligibility criteria were case control studies that compared the presence of polymorphisms or/and protein levels of subjects diagnosed with VFL and healthy controls. Of the 905 articles retrieved, five articles with a total of 1038 participants were included in this study. The C allele of the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)-819 T/C IL-10, A allele of the SNP -592 A/C IL-10, CT genotype of the SNP rs11886868 C/T BCL11A, GG genotype of the SNP rs4671393 A/G BCL11A, LL genotype, and L allele of (GT)n repeat polymorphisms of the HO-1 were risk factors for VFL development. Nevertheless, there was a lack of association between VFL and the -1082 A/G IL-10, rs14024 CK-1, and -309 T/G Mdm2 SNPs. The concentrations of the MDM2, BCL11A, and HO-1 proteins were modified, while IL-10 levels were normally expressed in these subjects. In conclusion, most markers evaluated in this review could be potential indicators to develop effective therapies, avoiding a malignant transformation of the lesion.

Genetic polymorphisms and protein levels in vocal fold leukoplakia: a systematic review

Vocal fold leukoplakia (VFL) has a risk of malignant transformation. Therefore, patients can have symptoms such as dysphonia, vocal strain, difficulty breathing, and dysphagia. Additionally, there is a genetic predisposition that can be associated with genetic polymorphisms. We aimed to evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms and protein levels in the etiology of VFL. Our study followed the PRISMA checklist and was registered on PROSPERO database. The questions were: "Are genetic polymorphisms involved in the etiology of VFL? Are protein levels altered in patients with VFL?". Eligibility criteria were case control studies that compared the presence of polymorphisms or/and protein levels of subjects diagnosed with VFL and healthy controls. Of the 905 articles retrieved, five articles with a total of 1038 participants were included in this study. The C allele of the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP)-819 T/C IL-10, A allele of the SNP -592 A/C IL-10, CT genotype of the SNP rs11886868 C/T BCL11A, GG genotype of the SNP rs4671393 A/G BCL11A, LL genotype, and L allele of (GT)n repeat polymorphisms of the HO-1 were risk factors for VFL development. Nevertheless, there was a lack of association between VFL and the -1082 A/G IL-10, rs14024 CK-1, and -309 T/G Mdm2 SNPs. The concentrations of the MDM2, BCL11A, and HO-1 proteins were modified, while IL-10 levels were normally expressed in these subjects. In conclusion, most markers evaluated in this review could be potential indicators to develop effective therapies, avoiding a malignant transformation of the lesion.

Does arthroscopy cause more complications than arthrocentesis in patients with internal temporomandibular joint disorders? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of this study was to compare, through a systematic review with a meta-analysis, the relative risks of arthroscopy and arthrocentesis in the temporomandibular joint. MEDLINE/PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Web of Science, SCOPUS were the researched databases, as well as grey literature and manual searches. The search results showed 656 studies, but only five met the eligibility criteria. The evaluation included 194 joints (104 patients): 101 were arthroscopy and 93 arthrocentesis. Complications were observed in four patients undergoing arthroscopy (two with temporary facial paralysis and two with prolonged cervical oedema) and in three patients undergoing arthrocentesis (two with severe bradycardia and one with prolonged cervical oedema). The meta-analysis demonstrated a relative risk of 0.99 for complications after arthroscopy compared with arthrocentesis, but the results showed no statistical differences. In conclusion, this systematic review suggests that there is no increased risk of complications with arthroscopy than arthrocentesis. When complications were present, they were temporary.

Comparison between computer-guided and freehand dental implant placement surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare computer-guided (fully guided) and freehand implant placement surgery in terms of marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019135893). Two independent investigators performed the search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 2020 and identified 1508 references. After a detailed review, only four studies were considered eligible. These studies involved a total of 154 patients with 597 dental implants and a mean follow-up period of 2.25 years. There was no difference between computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in terms of the marginal bone loss (mean difference -0.11mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 0.04mm; P=0.16), mechanical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-2.04; P=0.72), biological complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.42-5.74; P=0.51), and implant survival rate (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11-2.43; P=0.41). This meta-analysis demonstrated that both computer-guided and freehand surgeries yielded similar results for marginal bone loss, mechanical and biological complications, and implant survival rate.

Narrow-diameter implants versus regular-diameter implants for rehabilitation of the anterior region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.03; P=0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference -0.51mm, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.26mm; P=0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; P=0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P=0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic.

Comparison between flapless and open-flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.

Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites present a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar infection is known as a risk factor for implant failure. Current meta-analysis on the theme could not prove statistically that immediate dental implants placed into infected sites have a higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of immediate dental implants placed into infected versus non-infected sites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven databases were sought by two reviewers. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials that compared the placement of dental implants into infected versus non-infected sites were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were: papers in which the survival rate was not the primary outcome; papers without a control group; studies with less than one year of follow-up; studies whose patients did not receive antibiotic therapy; studies with medically compromised patients; duplicated papers. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: Of the 3.253 initial hits, 8 studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis (kappa=0.90; very good agreement). Forest plot for implant failure showed that immediate implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant risk of failure that is almost 3 times higher than when placed into non-infected sites (risk ratio= 2.99; 95% confidence interval: 1.04, 8.56; p= 0.04; 935 implants; i2= 0%). Peri-implant outcomes showed no statistical difference. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate dental implants placed into infected sites presented a statistically significant higher risk of failure than immediate dental implants placed into non-infected sites. Peri-implant outcomes were not statistically affected in this intervention.

Efficacy of corticosteroids versus placebo in impacted third molar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this systematic review was to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the control of pain, oedema, and trismus following third molar surgery, and to analyse the effects of the type of drug administered and the time and route of drug administration on the outcomes of interest. Searches were performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. This review was structured according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The search identified 1223 studies. After assessing eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17 studies were selected for the qualitative analysis (a total of 730 patients aged 15-45 years). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, which was performed using Review Manager software. The corticosteroids were effective in controlling pain (P=0.002; mean difference -17.38, 95% confidence interval -24.81 to -9.95) and trismus (P<0.00001; mean difference 6.10, 95% confidence interval 3.42 to 8.77). With the exception of the submucosal route, the route of administration did not appear to affect the outcomes. The administration of a corticosteroid in the preoperative phase was superior to its use in the postoperative phase for the control of trismus.

Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence of splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems on the marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published up to October 2017, using the following search terms: "overdenture AND attachment OR overdenture AND bar OR overdenture splinted." The PICO question "Do splinted overdenture attachment systems promote better clinical results in comparison to unsplinted systems?" was evaluated. Eligible studies included randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective studies with at least 10 participants and a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and studies published in English that compared splinted and unsplinted attachment systems within the same study. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered for all outcomes analysed. After completion of the different steps in the article selection process, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 984 implants were placed in 380 patients (mean age: 62.8 years). The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between splinted and unsplinted attachment systems with regard to marginal bone loss (P = .39; MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.14), complications (P = .31; RR: 1.26; CI: 0.80-1.99) and implant survival rate (P = .14; RR: 0.37% CI: 0.10-1.36). In addition, splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems achieved similar results with regard to marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate.

Survival of dental implants placed in HIV-positive patients: a systematic review.

No consensus has been reached on the use of dental implants in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients. This systematic review evaluated dental implants in HIV-positive patients in terms of implant survival and success rates, marginal bone loss, and complications. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until October 2017. Six studies were selected for review. In total, 821 implants were placed: 493 in 169 HIV-positive patients, and 328 in 135 HIV-negative patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 47.9 months. Weighted mean survival rate, success rate, and marginal bone loss values were calculated for the HIV-positive patients. Mean survival and success rates at the patient level (according to the number of patients) were 94.76% and 93.81%, respectively; when calculated at the implant level (according to the number of implants), these rates were 94.53% and 90.37%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.83mm at the patient level and 0.99mm at the implant level. Thus, dental implants are suitable for the rehabilitation of HIV-positive patients with controlled risk factors and normal CD4+ cell counts.

Bilateral balanced occlusion compared to other occlusal schemes in complete dentures: A systematic review.

No consensus has been reached regarding the best occlusal scheme for making complete dentures. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare bilateral balanced occlusion (BBO) with other occlusal schemes (canine guidance, lingualised occlusion and zero degree) in complete dentures. The schemes were compared in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of studies published in or before October 2017 using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The focused question was: "In conventional complete denture, is BBO better than lingualised occlusion, canine guidance and zero degree in terms of quality of life, patient satisfaction and masticatory performance/muscle activity?" Seventeen studies were selected for analysis. In total, there were 492 patients with a mean age of 64.78 years and a mean follow-up duration of 2.96 months (range: 1-6 months). All studies compared BBO with the other occlusal schemes. Eleven studies evaluated the influence of the occlusal scheme designs on quality of life and satisfaction, and 8 studies evaluated masticatory performance and muscle activity between BBO and the other occlusion schemes. The present systematic review indicated that BBO does not confer better quality of life/satisfaction or masticatory performance and muscle activity. Thus, lingualised occlusion can be considered a predictable occlusal scheme for complete dentures in terms of quality of life/satisfaction and masticatory performance, while canine guidance can be used to reduce muscular activity.

Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survival rate of the implants and the peri-implant tissue changes associated with implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets and those inserted in healed sockets. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42016043309. A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers independently in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using different search terms; articles published until November 2016 were searched for. The searches identified 30 eligible studies. A total of 3,049 implants were installed in a total of 1,435 patients with a mean age of 46.68 years and a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. The survival rate of delayed implants (98.38%) was significantly greater than immediate implants (95.21%) (p=.001). For the marginal bone loss (p=.32), implant stability quotients values (p=.44), and pocket probing depth (p=.94) there was no significant difference between the analysed groups. The immediate implants placed in fresh sockets should be performed with caution because of the significantly lower survival rates than delayed implants inserted in healed sockets.

Efficacy of the C-terminal telopeptide test in predicting the development of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: a systematic review.

This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of the morning fasting serum C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) test in predicting the development of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ). A comprehensive search of studies published up to March 2016, and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review has been registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42016036717). The search identified 542 publications; eight studies were finally deemed eligible for inclusion according to the study criteria. These studies included a total 1442 patients (mean age 66.7 years). The most prescribed drug was alendronate, with osteoporosis being the most frequent indication for the prescription of bisphosphonates. Tooth extraction was the most common trigger for BRONJ. Of all patients evaluated after bisphosphonate treatment, only 24 (1.7%) developed BRONJ. All eight of the selected studies found that CTX levels were not predictive of the development of BRONJ. In conclusion, this systematic review indicates that the CTX test has no predictive value in determining the risk of osteonecrosis in patients taking bisphosphonates.

Effects of platelet-rich plasma in association with bone grafts in maxillary sinus augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review evaluated the effect on bone formation and implant survival of combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with bone grafts in maxillary augmentation. A comprehensive review of articles listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases covering the period January 2000 to January 2015 was performed. The meta-analysis was based on bone formation for which the mean difference (MD, in millimetres) was calculated. Implant survival was assessed as a dichotomous outcome and evaluated using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The search identified 3303 references. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 17 studies were selected for qualitative analysis and 13 for quantitative analysis. A total of 369 patients (mean age 51.67 years) and 621 maxillary sinus augmentations were evaluated. After the data analysis, additional analyses were performed of the implant stability quotient, marginal bone loss, and alveolar bone height measured by MD. The results showed no significant difference in implant stability (P=0.32, MD 1.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 2.98), marginal bone loss (P=0.31, MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.16), alveolar bone height (P=0.10, MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.14), implant survival (P=0.22, RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.67-5.69), or bone formation (P=0.81, MD -0.63, 95% CI -5.91 to 4.65). In conclusion, the meta-analysis indicates no influence of PRP with bone graft on bone formation and implant survival in maxillary sinus augmentation.