Topical medications for the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present network meta-analysis aims to answer the question "what is the best topical intervention for the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis that can provide an acceptable pain relief and promote wound healing?" METHODS: From inception to October 2022, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched to identify all potentially eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes were pain scores and/or healing time, while the secondary outcomes were the associated side effects. The Bayesian network meta-analysis accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-three randomized controlled trials with a total of 3067 participants, comparing 20 different topical medications, were included. Concerning pain reduction, the network meta-analysis failed to show any statistically significant differences when different topical treatments were compared together or even with a placebo at different time intervals. Except for doxycycline, which showed a statistically significant difference in terms of accelerating healing time, other topical interventions showed no statistically significant differences when compared with placebo or with each other. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current network meta-analysis, it seems that: A low to moderate quality of evidence showed no superiority of any topical treatment over others concerning pain reduction, although rank probability tests revealed sucralfate, doxycycline, hyaluronic acid, and chamomile as the most efficacious treatment options at different evaluation times. Hence, further well-designed clinical trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. Topical doxycycline was shown to be the most efficacious intervention in promoting healing of recurrent aphthous stomatitis.

Does simultaneous soft tissue augmentation around immediate or delayed dental implant placement using sub-epithelial connective tissue graft provide better outcomes compared to other treatment options? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical benefits of simultaneous implant placement and soft tissue augmentation using different treatment modalities are unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of simultaneous soft tissue augmentation using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) around immediate or delayed dental implant placement with other treatment modalities on the peri-implant tissue health and esthetic. METHODS: Up to May 2021, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized control trials with follow-up >3 months, evaluating simultaneous implant placement (immediate or delayed) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG compared with other treatment modalities were included. The predictor variables were SCTG versus no augmentation with/without guided bone regeneration (GBR) or other augmentation techniques (Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). The outcome variables were buccal tissue thickness (BTT), mid-buccal gingival level (MGL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic scores (PES). Cumulative mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. SCTG along with immediate implant placement (IIP) or delayed implant placement (DIP) showed a statistically significant improvement in BTT (Fixed; MD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51; 0.97), MGL (Fixed; MD, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21; 0.80), PES (Fixed; MD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29; 1.29), and less MBL (Fixed; MD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14; -0.08) compared to no graft (P<0.05). A statistically insignificant differences in BTT (Random; MD, 0.62; 95% CI, -0.41; 1.65), MGL (Fixed; MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.23; 0.11), MBL (Fixed; MD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.05; 0.77) and PES (Fixed; MD, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.10; 0.67) was observed when SCTG along with DIP was compared with no augmentation plus GBR. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed when comparing SCTG along with DIP with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) concerning BTT (MD:0.71, P = 0.18) and KMW (MD: 0.6, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: There is a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations on whether simultaneous dental implant placement (IIP or DIP) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG is superior to no augmentation or is comparable to the other tissue augmentation materials in improving the quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues. Therefore, further, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and long follow-up times are still needed.