WITHDRAWN: Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment of root canals or root canal treatment is a frequently performed dental procedure and is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis (death) of the dental pulp (nerve). Removal of the necrotic tissue remnants and cleaning and shaping of the root canal are important phases of root canal treatment. Treatment options include the use of hand and rotary instruments and methods using ultrasonic or sonic equipment. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic instrumentation alone or in conjunction with hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles in an attempt to locate additional published and unpublished trials. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted in December 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving people over 18 years of age with single and multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and with no evidence of internal resorption requiring root canal treatment were included. Patients undertaking re-treatment of a tooth were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies was conducted in duplicate and independently. Results were to be expressed as fixed-effect or random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review illustrates the current lack of published or ongoing randomised controlled trials and the unavailability of high level evidence, based on clinically relevant outcomes, for the effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation used alone or as an adjunct to hand instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment.Future randomised controlled trials might focus more closely on evaluating the effectiveness of combinations of these interventions with an emphasis on not only clinically relevant but also patient-centred outcomes.

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects and can cause difficulties with feeding, speech and hearing, as well as psychosocial problems. Treatment of orofacial clefts is prolonged; it typically commences after birth and lasts until the child reaches adulthood or even into adulthood. Residual deformities, functional disturbances, or both, are frequently seen in adults with a repaired cleft. Conventional orthognathic surgery, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, is often performed for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia. An alternative intervention is distraction osteogenesis, which achieves bone lengthening by gradual mechanical distraction. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence regarding the effects and long-term results of maxillary distraction osteogenesis compared to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in people with cleft lip and palate. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 May 2018), Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 May 2018), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; from 1982 to 15 May 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maxillary distraction osteogenesis to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of cleft lip and palate maxillary hypoplasia in non-syndromic cleft patients aged 15 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for clarification or missing information whenever possible. All standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used. MAIN RESULTS: We found six publications involving a total of 47 participants requiring maxillary advancement of 4 mm to 10 mm. All of them related to a single trial performed between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Hong Kong, but not all of the publications reported outcomes from all 47 participants. The study compared maxillary distraction osteogenesis with orthognathic surgery, and included participants from 13 to 45 years of age.Results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the fact that this was a single trial at high risk of bias, with a small sample size.The main outcomes assessed were hard and soft tissue changes, skeletal relapse, effects on speech and velopharyngeal function, psychological status, and clinical morbidities.Both interventions produced notable hard and soft tissue improvements. Nevertheless, the distraction group demonstrated a greater maxillary advancement, evaluated as the advancement of Subspinale A-point: a mean difference of 4.40 mm (95% CI 0.24 to 8.56) was recorded two years postoperatively.Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was significantly less in the distraction osteogenesis group five years after surgery. A total forward movement of A-point of 2.27 mm was noted for the distraction group, whereas a backward movement of 2.53 mm was recorded for the osteotomy group (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.19).No statistically significant differences could be detected between the groups in speech outcomes, when evaluated through resonance (hypernasality) at 17 months postoperatively (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.85) and nasal emissions at 17 months postoperatively (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 66.53), or in velopharyngeal function at the same time point (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52).Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self-esteem at least until the distractors were removed, at three months postoperatively, compared to the osteotomy group, but this improved over time and the distraction group had higher satisfaction with life in the long term (two years after surgery) (MD 2.95, 95% CI 014 to 5.76).Adverse effects, in terms of clinical morbidities, included mainly occlusal relapse and mucosal infection, with the frequency being similar between groups (3/15 participants in the distraction osteogenesis group and 3/14 participants in the osteotomy group). There was no severe harm to any participant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found only one small randomised controlled trial concerning the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis compared to conventional orthognathic surgery. The available evidence is of very low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes, distraction osteogenesis may produce more satisfactory results; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of a larger sample size with participants with different facial characteristics is required to confirm possible true differences between interventions.

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions.

BACKGROUND: When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves removal of root canal filling materials from the tooth, followed by cleaning, shaping and obturating of the canals. Root-end resection is a surgical procedure that involves exposure of the periapical lesion through an osteotomy, surgical removal of the lesion, removal of part of the root-end tip, disinfection and, commonly, retrograde sealing or filling of the apical portion of the remaining root canal. This review updates one published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of surgical and non-surgical therapy for retreatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.To assess effects of surgical root-end resection under various conditions, for example, when different materials, devices or techniques are used. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 10 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 February 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 February 2016). We searched the US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 10 February 2016). We placed no restrictions regarding language and publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis. Studies could compare surgery versus non-surgical treatment or could compare different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer; postoperative pain and discomfort; and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus periapical radiography for preoperative assessment (one study at high risk of bias); antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo (one study at unclear risk); different magnification devices (loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) (two studies at high risk); types of incision (papilla base incision, sulcular incision) (one study at high risk and one at unclear risk); ultrasonic devices versus handpiece burs (one study at high risk); types of root-end filling material (glass ionomer cement, amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), gutta-percha (GP), super-ethoxy benzoic acid (EBA)) (five studies at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk and one at low risk); grafting versus no grafting (three studies at high risk and one at unclear risk); and low energy level laser therapy versus placebo (irradiation without laser activation) versus control (no use of the laser device) (one study at high risk).There was no clear evidence of superiority of the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or 10-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence).There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence).There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day 1 post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, and to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, precisely defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis versus orthognathic surgery for cleft lip and palate patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate is one of the most common birth defects and can cause difficulties with feeding, speech and hearing, as well as psychosocial problems. Treatment of orofacial clefts is prolonged; it typically commences after birth and lasts until the child reaches adulthood or even into adulthood. Residual deformities, functional disturbances, or both, are frequently seen in adults with a repaired cleft. Conventional orthognathic surgery, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, is often performed for the correction of maxillary hypoplasia. An alternative intervention is distraction osteogenesis, which achieves bone lengthening by gradual mechanical distraction. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence regarding the effects and long-term results of maxillary distraction osteogenesis compared to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of hypoplastic maxilla in people with cleft lip and palate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 February 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 February 2016), LILACS BIREME (1982 to 16 February 2016), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) (to 16 February 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 16 February 2016). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. We performed handsearching of six speciality journals and we checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maxillary distraction osteogenesis to conventional Le Fort I osteotomy for the correction of cleft lip and palate maxillary hypoplasia in non-syndromic cleft patients aged 15 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for clarification or missing information whenever possible. All standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane were used. MAIN RESULTS: We found six publications involving a total of 47 participants requiring maxillary advancement of 4 mm to 10 mm. All of them related to a single trial performed between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Hong Kong, but not all of the publications reported outcomes from all 47 participants. The study compared maxillary distraction osteogenesis with orthognathic surgery, and included participants from 13 to 45 years of age.Results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the fact that this was a single trial at high risk of bias, with a small sample size.The main outcomes assessed were hard and soft tissue changes, skeletal relapse, effects on speech and velopharyngeal function, psychological status, and clinical morbidities.Both interventions produced notable hard and soft tissue improvements. Nevertheless, the distraction group demonstrated a greater maxillary advancement, evaluated as the advancement of Subspinale A-point: a mean difference of 4.40 mm (95% CI 0.24 to 8.56) was recorded two years postoperatively.Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was significantly less in the distraction osteogenesis group five years after surgery. A total forward movement of A-point of 2.27 mm was noted for the distraction group, whereas a backward movement of 2.53 mm was recorded for the osteotomy group (mean difference 4.8 mm, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.19).No statistically significant differences could be detected between the groups in speech outcomes, when evaluated through resonance (hypernasality) at 17 months postoperatively (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.85) and nasal emissions at 17 months postoperatively (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 66.53), or in velopharyngeal function at the same time point (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52).Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self-esteem at least until the distractors were removed, at three months postoperatively, compared to the osteotomy group, but this improved over time and the distraction group had higher satisfaction with life in the long term (two years after surgery) (MD 2.95, 95% CI 014 to 5.76).Adverse effects, in terms of clinical morbidities, included mainly occlusal relapse and mucosal infection, with the frequency being similar between groups (3/15 participants in the distraction osteogenesis group and 3/14 participants in the osteotomy group). There was no severe harm to any participant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found only one small randomised controlled trial concerning the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis compared to conventional orthognathic surgery. The available evidence is of very low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes, distraction osteogenesis may produce more satisfactory results; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of a larger sample size with participants with different facial characteristics is required to confirm possible true differences between interventions.

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root-filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite, directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth, and may influence durability and cost. The decision to use a post and core in addition to the crown is clinician driven. The comparative clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root-filled teeth is unknown. This review updates the original, which was published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME. We also searched the reference lists of articles and ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration or indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trial and assessed its risk of bias. We carried out data analysis using the 'treatment as allocated' patient population, expressing estimates of intervention effect for dichotomous data as risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. None experienced a catastrophic failure (i.e. when the restoration cannot be repaired), although only 104 teeth were included in the final, three-year assessment. There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years. The quality of the evidence for these outcomes is very low. There was no evidence available for any of our secondary outcomes: patient satisfaction and quality of life, incidence or recurrence of caries, periodontal health status, and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available, clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

SADMFR Guidelines for the Use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/Digital Volume Tomography.

In 2011, the first consensus conference on guidelines for the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was convened by the Swiss Society of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology (SGDMFR). This conference covered topics of oral and maxillofacial surgery, temporomandibular joint dysfunctions and disorders, and orthodontics. In 2014, a second consensus conference was convened on guidelines for the use of CBCT in endodontics, periodontology, reconstructive dentistry and pediatric dentistry. The guidelines are intended for all dentists in order to facilitate the decision as to when the use of CBCT is justified. As a rule, the use of CBCT is considered restrictive, since radiation protection reasons do not allow its routine use. CBCT should therefore be reserved for complex cases where its application can be expected to provide further information that is relevant to the choice of therapy. In periodontology, sufficient information is usually available from clinical examination and periapical radiographs; in endodontics alternative methods can often be used instead of CBCT; and for implant patients undergoing reconstructive dentistry, CT is of interest for the workflow from implant planning to the superstructure. For pediatric dentistry no application of CBCT is seen for caries diagnosis.

Irrigants for non-surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND: Root canal treatment is carried out on teeth in which irreversible pulpitis has led to necrosis of the dental pulp. As a treatment option it is an alternative to dental extraction. Mechanical preparation and irrigation with antiseptic or antibacterial solutions destroys bacteria and cleans the infected root canal. Irrigants should be effective in deactivating bacteria in the entire root canal space without causing any adverse tissue reactions. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine are commonly used but there is uncertainty as to which solution, concentration or combination is the most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of irrigants used in the non-surgical root canal treatment of mature permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 July 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid (1950 to 5 July 2012), EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 5 July 2012), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to 5 July 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in single or multi-rooted permanent teeth with pulpal or periapical pathology or both, which require root canal treatment. Irrigants either against each other or against inactive irrigant or placebo. Combinations of irrigants were allowed and if used in conjunction with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid) or similar chelating agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials involving 851 participants with 879 teeth which had undergone root canal treatment and involved the use of irrigants. Two trials were assessed as being at low risk of bias, with six unclear and three high. Four trials compared sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine, however, no primary outcomes and only one secondary outcome, bacterial growth cultures, was reported for two of these trials (20% and 50% of teeth in the control group had positive bacterial culture). The meta-analysis indicated no strong evidence of a difference in the existence of bacterial growth between the interventions (risk ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.56; P = 0.41). The seven remaining trials each compared different interventions and only two of these trials included useable data on the primary outcomes of swelling and pain. One trial compared sodium hypochlorite 5.25% alone versus sodium hypochlorite 5.25% combined with hydrogen peroxide 3%, and versus normal saline and reported pain at 3 to 14 days after the procedure. There was no evidence of a difference in pain between the three groups. The other trial compared sodium hypochlorite 5% versus sodium hypochlorite with 'proteolytic enzyme', and there was no evidence of a difference in swelling between the groups. Two further trials reported bacterial growth, and three trials failed to report any data which could be used in the review. None of the included trials reported any data on adverse effects nor radiological changes in periapical radiolucency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although root canal irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine appear to be effective at reducing bacterial cultures when compared to saline, most of the studies included in this review failed to adequately report these clinically important and potentially patient-relevant outcomes. There is currently insufficient reliable evidence showing the superiority of any one individual irrigant. The strength and reliability of the supporting evidence was variable and clinicians should be aware that changes in bacterial counts or pain in the early postoperative period may not be accurate indicators of long-term success. Future trials should report both clinician-relevant and patient-preferred outcomes at clearly defined perioperative, as well as long-term, time points.

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root filled teeth.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic treatment, involves removal of the dental pulp and its replacement by a root canal filling. Restoration of root filled teeth can be challenging due to structural differences between vital and non-vital root filled teeth. Direct restoration involves placement of a restorative material e.g. amalgam or composite directly into the tooth. Indirect restorations consist of cast metal or ceramic (porcelain) crowns. The choice of restoration depends on the amount of remaining tooth which may influence long term survival and cost. The comparative in service clinical performance of crowns or conventional fillings used to restore root filled teeth is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of restoration of endodontically treated teeth (with or without post and core) by crowns versus conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCO, LILACS via BIREME and the reference lists of articles as well as ongoing trials registries.There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Date of last search was 13 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials in participants with permanent teeth which have undergone endodontic treatment. Single full coverage crowns compared with any type of filling materials for direct restoration, as well as indirect partial restorations (e.g. inlays and onlays). Comparisons considered the type of post and core used (cast or prefabricated post), if any. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One trial judged to be at high risk of bias due to missing outcome data, was included. 117 participants with a root filled premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration. At 3 years there was no reported difference between the non-catastrophic failure rates in both groups. Decementation of the post and marginal gap formation occurred in a small number of teeth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of conventional fillings over crowns for the restoration of root filled teeth. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on how to restore root filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients.

Prevention of root caries.

DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Elders having at least five teeth with exposed roots, no serious medical problems and basic self-care ability (including oral hygiene practices) were randomly allocated into one of four prevention groups. Individualised oral hygiene instruction was provided to each participant, focusing on effective brushing with a manual toothbrush, and use of fluoride toothpaste was recommended. Before applications of the study agents, a piece of gauze was used to clean and dry the teeth. Then water (placebo control), chlorhexidine varnish (Cervitec, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), sodium fluoride varnish (Duraphat, Pharbil Waltrop GmbH, Waltrop, Germany) or SDF solution (Saforide, Toyo Seiyaku Kasei Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) was applied onto the exposed root surfaces of participants in the respective groups by means of a disposable microbrush. The participants were instructed not to eat for half an hour after treatment. Applications of water or SDF solution were repeated every 12 months, and applications of chlorhexidine varnish or sodium fluoride varnish were repeated every three months. OUTCOME MEASURES: Root Caries Index (RCI) was calculated as follows: (no. of root caries lesions/no. of teeth with gingival recession/person) × 100. Treatment effects were also measured by prevented fraction (PF), relative risk and the number (of elders) needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one elder from developing root caries. RESULTS: Two thirds (203/306) of the included elders were followed for three years. Significantly lower relative risks for developing new root caries were found in the elders in the chlorhexidine, sodium fluoride and SDF groups compared with the control (OHI only) group. The mean numbers of new root caries surfaces in the four groups were 2.5, 1.1, 0.9 and 0.7 respectively (ANOVA, p < 0.001). The prevented fraction and numbers needed to treat are shown in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: Applications of SDF solution, sodium fluoride varnish and chlorhexidine varnish are more effective in preventing new root caries than OHI alone. The results of this study provide support for the clinical and community use of the three test materials, in addition to improvement in oral hygiene, to prevent the development of root caries in institutionalised elders.

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS).

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR. METHODS: Potentially eligible systematic reviews in JAOS were identified through an electronic search of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). Details of the relevant aspects of methodology as reported in these systematic reviews were extracted from the full text publications. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR questionnaire. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews were identified, one of which was subsequently excluded as it was a review of a diagnostic test. Summary AMSTAR scores for the four included reviews were: 1, 5, 2 and 4 out of a maximum score of 11 (range 1-5, mean 3) with only one of the reviews scoring 5. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR evaluation of the methodological quality of the relatively small number of systematic reviews published in JAOS illustrated that there was room for improvement. Pre-publication and editorial appraisal of future systematic reviews might benefit from the application of tools such as AMSTAR and is to be recommended.

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly infuence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR. METHODS: Potentially eligible systematic reviews in JAOS were identifed through an electronic search of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). Details of the relevant aspects of methodology as reported in these systematic reviews were extracted from the full text publications. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR questionnaire. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews were identifed, one of which was subsequently excluded as it was a review of a diagnostic test. Summary AMSTAR scores for the four included reviews were: 1, 5, 2 and 4 out of a maximum score of 11 (range 1-5, mean 3) with only one of the reviews scoring 5. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR evaluation of the methodological quality of the relatively small number of systematic reviews published in JAOS illustrated that there was room for improvement. Pre-publication and editorial appraisal of future systematic reviews might beneft from the application of tools such as AMSTAR and is to be recommended.