Evidence-based dentistry
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Sep 2014
CommentLonger treatment times with self-ligated orthodontic brackets.
The Medline, Cochrane Library, Biomed Central, BBO including LILACS, Ind Med, Sceilo, Clinical trials.gov, Conference paper Index, Digital Dissertations, German National Library of Medicine (ZB MED), Google Scholar, ISI Web of Knowledge, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, OpenSIGLE and Scirus databases were searched. ⋯ Based on existing evidence, no clinical recommendation can be made regarding the bracket material or different ligation modules. For Sl brackets, no conclusive benefits could be proven, while their use was associated with longer treatment durations.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Sep 2014
CommentInsufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Register. ⋯ There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments. High quality trials conducted in general dental practice settings with sufficiently long follow-up periods (five years or more) are required to address the objectives of this review.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Sep 2014
CommentLack of high-quality studies comparing the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing dental care.
Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Medline; Embase; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. A number of dental journals were hand-searched and a grey literature search preformed. ⋯ We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias, and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.