Evidence-based dentistry
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Mar 2015
CommentInsufficient evidence of effect of periodontal treatment on prevention or management of cardiovascular disease.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, OpenGrey, the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and the VIP database, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Sciencepaper Online databases were searched with no restrictions on language or date. ⋯ We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to support or refute whether periodontal therapy can prevent the recurrence of CVD in the long term in patients with chronic periodontitis. No evidence on primary prevention was found.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Mar 2015
CommentSalt water mouthwash post extraction reduced post operative complications.
Randomised controlled trial. ⋯ The instruction to use warm saline mouth rinse is beneficial in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after dental extractions. There is no significant difference in the efficacy of the twice-daily warm saline mouth rinse regimen compared to the six times daily regimen. The twice-daily saline mouth rinse regimen is more convenient, and patient compliance may be better than with the six times daily rinse routine.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Mar 2015
Lack 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.