Evidence-based dentistry
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Sep 2020
Can medical practitioners rely on prediction models for COVID-19? A systematic review.
Aim This systematic review sought to assess and scrutinise the validity and practicality of published and preprint reports of prediction models for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with COVID-19, and for identifying individuals in the general population at increased risk of infection with COVID-19 or being hospitalised with the illness. Data sources A systematic, online search was conducted in PubMed and Embase. In order to do so, the authors used Ovid as the host platform for these two databases and also investigated bioRxiv, medRxiv and arXiv as repositories for the preprints of studies. ⋯ Conclusions Overall, this study did not recommend applying any of the predictive models in clinical practice yet. High risk of bias, reporting problems and (probably) optimistic reported performances are all among the reasons for the previous conclusion. Prompt actions regarding accurate data sharing and international collaborations are required to achieve more rigorous prediction models for COVID-19.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Jun 2020
ReviewWhich type of personal protective equipment (PPE) and which method of donning or doffing PPE carries the least risk of infection for healthcare workers?
Data sources CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. Study selection Controlled studies (randomised or non-randomised) that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE on healthcare workers (HCW) exposed to highly infectious diseases, assessed which method of donning and doffing PPE was associated with reduced risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increased compliance with PPE protocols. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion of studies. ⋯ Coveralls are the most difficult PPE to remove but may offer the best protection, followed by long gowns, gowns and aprons. The included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, indirectness of evidence in simulation studies and small participant numbers. This increases the uncertainty about the estimates of effects, and it is likely that the true effects may be substantially different from the ones reported in this review.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Sep 2019
ReviewOne phase or two phase orthodontic treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion ?
Data sources Numerous online databases were searched including:, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. ⋯ Conclusions Evidence classified as low to moderate quality suggests that providing early orthodontic treatment/two stages for children with prominent upper front teeth is more effective for reducing the incidence of upper front teeth trauma ( incisal trauma) than providing one course of orthodontic treatment in adolescence. However, it appears that there is no other benefit of providing early treatment when compared to late treatment. Low-quality evidence proposes that, compared to no treatment, late treatment in adolescence with functional appliances, is effective for reducing the prominence of upper front teeth.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Jun 2018
Meta AnalysisNon-pharmacological pain relief during orthodontic treatment.
Data sourcesA comprehensive literature search in all languages was carried out. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (till 6 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 till October 6th, 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 till October 6th, 2016) and EThOS (till October 6th, 2016). ⋯ Authors were contacted to clarify study information. Study selectionThe inclusion criteria of studies were defined as patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, up to 18 years of age.
-
Evidence-based dentistry · Mar 2017
Review Comparative StudyTo cord or not to cord? That is still a question.
Data sourcesA broad computerised search with similar key terms was performed in different databases that included: Ovid Medline, Thomson's ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature, dissertations, abstracts and theses were searched too. Reference lists of the selected articles were hand-searched. ⋯ The review supports the observation that gingival retraction paste can more effectively help to achieve a dry field and at the same time be less injurious to soft tissues, however its ability to displace gingival tissues, compared to retraction cord, was compromising. Rather than considering the cost of material or the individual preference of the operator, choosing the right technique to maximise clinical efficiency should be based on scientific evidence. It seems that impregnated gingival cords are more effective on thick gingival tissue whereas paste is more effective when minimal retraction is required for haemostasis control, preservation of the gingiva and less tissue displacement.