METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among health care professionals who are part of the Integrated Platform for Research in Advancing Metabolic Health outcomes of Women and Children (IPRMAHO) international study group on their understanding and perception of Vitamin D screening and supplementation in pregnancy. The cross-sectional survey comprised 4 main sections: demographics, existing policies, nutrient supplementation in pregnancy and various practices on screening, treatment and perceptions, with a total of 22 questions. A total of 15 responses were obtained from attendees from distinct health facilities across eleven participating Asia-Pacific countries.
RESULTS: Majority of the surveyed hospitals (11/15, 78.6 %) did not have a national policy or regional guideline regarding Vitamin D screening and supplementation in pregnancy. More than half of respondents were (9/14, 64.3 %) were unsure of the percentage of women seen with Vitamin D deficiencies each year and were unsure of Vitamin D dosage prescribed to pregnant women with (8/15, 53.3 %) or without (6/14, 42.9 %) Vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D was rarely prescribed in pregnancy when compared to other nutrient supplements such as folic acid and iron. Majority of respondents (9/11, 72.7 %) indicated that their hospital did not screen for Vitamin D deficiencies in pregnancy, even amongst high risk pregnant women. Nevertheless, majority of respondents indicated a need (12/15, 80.0 %) for a guideline or consensus regarding Vitamin D screening and supplementation in pregnancy.
CONCLUSION: While majority of the surveyed hospitals did not have a national policy or regional guideline regarding Vitamin D screening and supplementation in pregnancy, majority of respondents indicated a need for the policy or guideline. There were varying clinical knowledge gaps and different perceptions on Vitamin D screening and supplementation in pregnancy among healthcare professionals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 3 databases (Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus) was performed to identify randomized control trials evaluating the efficacy of RAU interventions published until December 2022. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted on 4 outcomes: reduction in pain, duration of ulceration, the diameter of ulceration, and area of ulceration. The interventions are then arranged using the surface area under cumulative ranking (SUCRA).
RESULTS: A total of 38 trials involving 2773 patients were included were included in quantitative synthesis by NMA. Our analysis showed that Diode laser [MD, -4.865 ± 1.951 (95%CI = (-8.690, -1.041)] was the most effective in reducing the pain score followed by Amlexanox [MD, -2.673 ± 1.075 (95%CI = -4.779, -0.566)]. Iralvex performed the best in reducing the duration of ulceration [MD, -6.481 ± 1.841 (95%CI = -10.090, -2.872)]. Diode laser, acacia nilotica with licorice formulation, and amlexanox were the most effective interventions for reduction of ulcer diameter. Majority of the trials reported absence of any adverse effects and those reported were mild.
CONCLUSION: Our NMA has identified several interventions to be more effective than a placebo. Laser therapy may be an option for promoting pain management, however, most have only been tested in 1 or 2 trials. Further studies with rigorous methodology on larger samples are recommended to strengthen the current evidence.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up assessing survival and complication rates of resin composite laminate veneers on permanent dentition from 1998 to May 2022. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials electronic databases. References cited in the related reviews and included full-text articles were also hand-searched to further identify potentially relevant studies.
RESULTS: A total of 827 articles were identified. Twenty-two studies were considered for full-text review after the title and abstract screening stage. After exclusion, 7 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies) were included in the systematic review. Three published scales were adopted for the quality and risk of bias assessment. At the survival rate threshold, the overall heterogeneity (I2) for randomized controlled trials was 50.5% (P = .108). The overall pooled survival rate of the randomized controlled trials was 88% (95% CI: 81%-94%), with the mean follow-up time ranging from 24 to 97 months. Surface roughness, color mismatch, and marginal discoloration were the most reported complications.
CONCLUSION: Resin composite laminate veneers demonstrated moderately high survival rates for the entire sample and the direct laminate veneer group demonstrated higher survival rates than the indirect approach. Most of the complications were regarded as clinically acceptable with or without reintervention.