RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of hearing health education programs aimed at preventing noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), of recreational and occupational origin, by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: The search strategy was carried out in on five electronic databases, as well as referrals from experts. The risk of bias was judged, and the random effects meta-analysis was performed. The certainty of the evidence was assessed. STUDY SAMPLE: Effectiveness studies that used educational intervention in hearing health and prevention of NIHL were included. RESULTS: 42 studies were included. The Dangerous Decibels program was the only one that could be quantitatively analysed and showed improvement in the post-intervention period of up to one week [SMD = 0.60; CI95% = 0.38-0.82; I2 = 92.5%) and after eight weeks [SMD = 0.45; CI95% = 0.26-0.63; I2 = 81.6%) compared to the baseline. The certainty of evidence was judged as very low. CONCLUSIONS: The Dangerous Decibels program is effective after eight weeks of intervention. The other programs cannot be quantified. They still present uncertainty about their effectiveness. The level of certainty is still low for this assessment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, the authors aimed to answer the following question: Do vital teeth differ in the level of external root resorption induced by means of orthodontic treatment compared with root-filled teeth? TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The search strategy was performed in 6 electronic databases and in gray literature for articles published until July 29, 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed potentially eligible studies according to the following criteria: studies that evaluated patients undergoing fixed orthodontic therapy and compared the mean difference in millimeters of orthodontically induced external root resorption in endodontically treated teeth with the vital contralateral tooth. Only randomized, quasi-randomized, nonrandomized, cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies were considered eligible. There were no restrictions on language or publication time. Two reviewers also independently extracted data on the characteristics of the included studies, methods, and results, and performed risk-of-bias analysis using the Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review instrument. Estimates of interest were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Endodontically treated teeth had a lower level of root resorption (mean difference, 0.45 mm; 95% CI, -0.69 to -0.21 mm). However, the level of certainty of the evidence was considered very low owing to confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Endodontically treated teeth may have a lower level of orthodontically induced root resorption than vital teeth, but the evidence is still uncertain about this outcome. Furthermore, owing to the small effect size, this difference might not be clinically significant (up to 1 mm).
