Soft tissue expansion using self-inflating osmotic hydrogel expanders prior to bone augmentation: healing and complications. Evidence-based review.

AIM: This review aims to assess complication rates, soft tissue gain, and bone gain associated with the use of self-inflating osmotic hydrogel tissue expanders (SOHTEs) for soft tissue expansion (STE). METHODS: A comprehensive search on Pubmed and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify human studies using SOHTEs for STE; last searched in March 2023. Expansion phase details and expander variables were documented. Complication rates, soft tissue gain, and bone gain reported in each study were also recorded. The inclusion criteria encompassed human studies ranging from evidence levels II-IV (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence), without specific date limits. For assessing bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a Risk of Bias tool was employed. The synthesised results were presented through tables, sunburst plots, and bar charts. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were identified, comprising 4 RCTs, 1 cohort study, and 8 case-series. Employment of SOHTEs yielded an overall complication rate of 17% (24/140 sites), with expander perforation accounting for 9.3% (13/140) of the sites. Specific complication rates included dehiscence (1.4%, 2/140 sites), paraesthesia (1.4%, 2/140 sites), and infection (1.4%, 2/140 sites). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were categorised at Level II. The remaining investigations primarily consisted of Level IV case-series lacking controls. All studies demonstrated some concerns towards bias. CONCLUSION: STE studies using SOHTEs exhibit a reduction in complications associated with bone augmentation in scenarios of inadequate soft tissue coverage. Preliminary evidence suggests potential benefits even in cases with sufficient soft tissue. Adherence to procedural precautions may reduce the risk of expander perforations, further diminishing complications. Subsequent studies should incorporate individual patient and expander variables in their reports to explore the impact of expansion phases on complication rates, as well as bone and soft tissue augmentation.

Efficacy and safety of using antibiotics to prevent post-operative complications in oral implant treatment: evidence-based review.

AIMS: To identify and critically appraise available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in preventing complications following oral implant placement treatment. METHODS: An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases up to July/21 for the purpose of answering the research question: In[healthy adults treated with dental implants]the use of[different antibiotics before or immediately after treatment]in comparison to[treatment without antibiotics]is safe and effective in terms of[infection, pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, soft tissue healing, early/late implant failure]? Following the Best Evidence Topic methodology, the included studies were categorised based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) ratings. The critical appraisal skills programme CASP checklist was used for the methodological analysis. The risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Methodology for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: 26 of the 245 initially identified articles met our inclusion criteria for analysis after applying rigorous filters. The included human studies demonstrated significant methodological heterogeneity, precluding meta-analysis. These studies spanned evidence levels II to IV, as per OCEBM 2011 classifications, with the United States contributing the most studies (19.2%, n = 5), all at level III. The United Kingdom and Spain followed with three studies each (11.5% each), two from the UK and one from Spain classified at level II. Most studies had less than 1 year of follow-up (21%). Our analysis included 26 studies, with 38 antibiotic patient groups totalling 7459 patients. Amoxicillin was the predominant antibiotic, with various dosage regimens. Complications were observed in studies across different amoxicillin regimens at a cumulative incidence of 5%. CONCLUSION: The evidence on antibiotics to prevent implant failure presents uncertain and heterogeneous findings. High-risk bias and underpowered studies were prevalent. Future research should prioritise multicentre, double-blinded RCTs with larger samples and longer follow-ups. Structured methodologies, antibiotic stewardship, and adherence to guidelines are needed. Amoxicillin (2 g) was commonly prescribed, but guidelines recommend 3 g, which results in relatively low complications yet there is limited evidence to support it. Clindamycin was favoured for penicillin allergies, but caution is advised due to potential implant failure risk. Consistent use of antiseptic mouthwash was observed. Future research should explore alternatives to antibiotics and antibiotic stewardship. Establishing a well-funded research consortium could yield conclusive results for clinical practice.

Evidence-based review: Screening body dysmorphic disorder in aesthetic clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a psychiatric disturbance with high incidence in aesthetic clinical settings. Early recognition may avoid unnecessary elective procedures with ethical and medicolegal consequences. AIMS: To identify validated BDD screening tools and critically appraise current literature regarding its implementation and efficacy in aesthetic medicine and surgery scenarios, with the purpose of transposing the findings to the broad clinical settings in the field. METHODS: Data was collected using advanced search from PubMed (MEDLINE). Having satisfied the search parameters, 12 studies referring BDD definition according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) criteria and including a BDD screening tool in clinical aesthetic settings were selected. RESULTS: While BDD screening enables the recognition of at-risk individuals, further work is required to uncover the best screening tool for general aesthetic clinical practice. Level III evidence favored BDD Questionnaire (BDDQ)/BDDQ-Dermatology Version (DV), and The Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (DCQ) among the limited available validated screening instruments to be used outside the psychiatric environment. Based on level II self-classification, one study selected BDDQ-Aesthetic Surgery (AS) version for rhinoplasty patients. The validation process of both BDDQ-AS and Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire (COPS) had limitations. For BDD screening potential in avoiding postoperative complications, the limited studies found evaluating the outcomes following aesthetic treatments using validated BDD screening measures showed a trend toward less satisfaction with aesthetic treatment outcome among positive screening population against non-BDD counterparts. CONCLUSION: Further research is necessary to establish more effective methods to identify BDD and evaluate the impact of positive findings on aesthetic intervention outcomes. Future studies may elucidate which BDD characteristics best predict a favorable outcome and provide high-quality evidence for standardized protocols in research and clinical practice.

Impact of botulinum toxin for facial aesthetics on psychological well-being and quality of life: Evidence-based review.

BACKGROUND: There has been a steady growth of non-surgical minimally invasive procedures. In parallel, an ever-broadening range of clinicians has been engaging with botulinum toxin (BoNT) for aesthetic procedures, with reportedly compound positive impact on social health and psychological well-being. OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise current literature on the impact of BoNT injections into the upper face, as a sole treatment/combination with other modalities on facial aesthetics, psychological well-being, and quality-of-life. METHODS: An evidence-based review was performed using advanced search from PubMed, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Central Register of Controlled Trials databases . Only literature from inception to August, 2021 were considered. Eligibility criteria included human studies, FDA-approved BoNT applications, formulations, and dosages as a sole/multimodal approach; studies including patient-reported outcome tools psychometrically validated and facial lines-specific. Observer-reported outcome instruments were also considered for a thorough evaluation of outcomes. RESULTS: Based on data investigations and participant assessments, all studies showed statistically significant improvement in psychosocial well-being and quality-of-life domains with a trend for highest impact when multiple upper facial areas are treated in a multimodal approach. CONCLUSION: Aesthetic BoNT showed links to true health benefits for well-selected patients in addition to physical amelioration. However, the biological rational remains ambiguous. Well-designed controlled trials are needed, without pharmaceutical laboratories bias, in real clinical scenarios of patients paying for the interventions, often involving multiple areas with/without combined treatments. The persistence of positive outcomes following repetitive treatments provided by less experienced practitioners, potentially involving suboptimal patient selection and/or aesthetic results, warrants further investigation.

Botulinum toxin A in dentistry and orofacial surgery: an evidence-based review - part 2: cosmetic applications.

Objective An evidence-based review on the role of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) on diverse cosmetic applications of interest to dental practitioners and allied specialities. In this context, to identify the cosmetic treatments that have an evidence-based rationale against areas requiring further research, with a view to assess the safety and efficacy of BoNTA.Data source and selection A comprehensive search was conducted using Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed (Medline) electronic databases. Thirty-nine studies of variable quality were included. The Best Evidence Topics (BETs) Critical Appraisal Tool was used to facilitate the quality assessment of relevant studies.Data extraction Based on current level II evidence, BoNTA was safe and effective to improve facial contour, reduce volume and thickness of bilateral hypertrophic masseter. Conservative doses using a combined approach of BoNTA and hyaluronic acid was recommended as a safe and effective treatment for perioral enhancement supported by level II evidence. There was limited evidence, not higher than level III, to support BoNTA effectiveness for gummy smile associated to perioral musculature hyperactivity, while jawline sculpting targeting the platysma muscle had lower level IV evidence up to this date.Conclusion BoNTA has been widely used off-label for the investigated cosmetic orofacial conditions, with reports of 'good patient and practitioner satisfaction'. However, there is limited high-quality evidence to support the long-term safety and effectiveness of repetitive BoNTA injections. Additionally, no studies were found that provided a cost-effectiveness evaluation of BoNTA formulations against other current cosmetic interventions. Well-designed clinical trials, including long-term follow-up, would help to provide robust evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice, supporting BoNTA popularity, independently or in a combined approach.

Botulinum toxin A in dentistry and orofacial surgery: an evidence-based review - part 1: therapeutic applications.

Objective An evidence-based review on the safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin type-A (BoNTA) in orofacial conditions, focusing on the therapeutic applications and role of BoNTA as an adjuvant treatment.Data source and selection Data was collected using PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases. Having satisfied the search parameters, 32 studies for therapeutic applications and 26 for BoNTA as an adjunctive treatment were included. The quality of relevant studies was assessed using the Best Evidence Topics (BETs) Critical Appraisal Tool.Data extraction The highest level of evidence (LOE) behind BoNTA safety and efficacy was for wound healing and scar management in the orofacial surgery context, where BoNTA was presented as an adjunctive modality. Level-I evidence was controversial for temporomandibular disorders and bruxism. However, it showed promising results for painful temporomandibular disorders of myogenic origin refractory to conservative therapies, and to decrease muscle contraction intensity in sleeping bruxism. There was only one level-II study for persistent recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Data showed limited level-III evidence for orofacial pain conditions (temporomandibular joint recurrent dislocation and pain, burning mouth syndrome or atypical odontalgia), oral cancer complications, or as an adjuvant to maxillofacial and orthognathic surgeries. Benefits of BoNTA in prosthodontics had weak level-IV evidence. No evidence was found among the periodontology field.Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the safety and efficacy of BoNTA in the investigated orofacial pathological conditions, with high levels of satisfaction from the patient and clinician perspective. However, there are some inconsistencies and limited high-quality evidence available. Well-designed controlled clinical trials are necessary to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness before BoNTA is widely adopted with irrefutable evidence-based clinical guidelines.