Different light-activation systems associated with dental bleaching: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis were performed to answer the following research question: "Is there any light-activation protocol capable of improving color change efficacy when associated with an in-office bleaching gel in adults?" MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE without date and/or language restrictions in April 23, 2017 (updated on March 30, 2018). IADR abstracts (1990-2018), unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials conducted in adults that included at least one group treated with in-office dental bleaching with light activation were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian-mixed treatment comparison (MTC) model was used to combine light-activated versus light-free in-office bleaching with direct light-free comparison trials. A meta-analysis with independent analysis (high- and low-concentrate hydrogen peroxide [HP]) was conducted for color change (∆E*, ∆SGU). RESULTS: After the removal of duplicates, title, and abstract screening, 28 studies remained. Nine were considered to be at a low RoB, five were at a high RoB, and the remaining were at an unclear RoB. The MTC analysis showed no significant difference in color change (ΔE* and ΔSGU) between light-activation protocols and light-free in-office bleaching, regardless of the HP concentration in the efficacy of the bleaching. CONCLUSION: No type of light-activated in-office bleaching was superior to light-free in-office bleaching for both high- and low-concentrate in-office bleaching gels (PROSPERO-CRD42017078743). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although many times dental professionals use "laser whitening" as a form of marketing, this study confirmed that no type of light-activation for in-office bleaching can improve the bleaching efficacy.

Different digestion enzymes used for human pancreatic islet isolation: a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis.

Collagenases are critical reagents determining yield and quality of isolated human pancreatic islets and may affect islet transplantation outcome. Some islet transplantation centers have compared 2 or more collagenase blends; however, the results regarding differences in quantity and quality of islets are conflicting. Thus, for the first time, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis was carried out to compile data about the effect of different collagenases used for human pancreas digestion on islet yield, purity, viability and stimulation index (SI). Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane libraries were searched. Of 755 articles retrieved, a total of 15 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the MTC meta-analysis. Our results revealed that Vitacyte and Liberase MTF were associated with a small increase in islet yield (islet equivalent number/g pancreas) when compared with Sevac enzyme [standardized mean difference (95% credible interval - CrI) = -2.19 (-4.25 to -0.21) and -2.28 (-4.49 to -0.23), respectively]. However, all other enzyme comparisons did not show any significant difference regarding islet yield. Purity and viability percentages were not significantly different among any of the analyzed digestion enzymes. Interestingly, Vitacyte and Serva NB1 were associated with increased SI when compared with Liberase MTF enzyme [unstandardized weighted mean difference (95% CrI) = -1.69 (-2.87 to -0.51) and -1.07 (-1.79 to -0.39), respectively]. In conclusion, our MTC meta-analysis suggests that the digestion enzymes currently being used for islet isolation works with similar efficiency regarding islet yield, purity and viability; however, Vitacyte and Serva NB1 enzymes seem to be associated with an improved SI as compared with Liberase MTF.