MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, and parallel design trial will be carried out in a public university teaching hospitals in Malaysia. Eligible type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects will be randomly assigned to receive either acupuncture (n = 30) or a placebo (n = 30). The intervention is carried out using press needle or press placebo on abdomen area (10 sessions of treatment). Both groups will continue with their routine diabetes care. Primary outcome of HOMA-IR will be measured at the time of recruitment (-week 0), and after completion of 10 sessions (week 7) of the treatment. Additionally, secondary outcome of HRQoL will be measured at the time of recruitment (-week 0), after completion of 5 sessions (week 3/4), and 10 sessions (week 7) of the treatment. Any adverse event will be recorded at every visit.
DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will provide important clinical evidence for the effect of acupuncture as adjunctive therapy on HOMA-IR, adiposity and HRQoL of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04829045.
METHODS: YouTube videos were systematically acquired with 4 search terms. The top 50 videos per search term by the number of views were stored in a YouTube account. A set of inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, videos were assessed for viewing characteristics, a 4-point scoring system (0-3) was applied to evaluate QOI in 10 predetermined domains, and a 3-point scoring system (0-2) was applied to evaluate COI. Descriptive statistical analyses and intrarater and interrater reliability tests were performed.
RESULTS: Strong intrarater and interrater reliability scores were observed. Sixty-three videos from the top 58 most-viewed DPs were viewed 1,395,471 times (range, 414-124,939). Most DPs originated from the United States (20%), and orthodontists (62%) uploaded most of the videos. The mean number of reported domains was 2.03 ± 2.40 (out of 10). The mean overall QOI score per domain was 0.36 ± 0.79 (out of 3). The "Placement of miniscrews" domain scored highest (1.23 ± 0.75). The "Cost of miniscrews placement" domain scored the lowest (0.03 ± 0.25). The mean overall QOI score per DP was 3.59 ± 5.64 (out of 30). The COI in 32 videos was immeasurable, and only 2 avoided using technical words.
CONCLUSIONS: The QOI related to temporary anchorage devices contained within videos provided by DPs through the YouTube Web site is deficient, particularly in the cost of placement. Orthodontists should be aware of the importance of YouTube as an information resource and ensure that videos related to temporary anchorage devices contain comprehensive and evidence-based information.
AIM: This review had three aims: first, to identify the outcome measures (OMs) reported in trials of dental behavior support; second, to categorize the component DBS techniques reported within interventions according to emerging agreed terminology; and, third, to map outcome measures to intervention type.
METHODS: A scoping review of trials evaluating DBS techniques was undertaken from 2012 to 2022. The review was prospectively registered. Studies were identified through Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO. Study abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted by single selector. Outcome measures were sorted according to measurement domains (physiological, behavioral, psychological, and treatment). Responses were assimilated and summed to produce a refined list of distinguishable outcome measures. Intervention types were categorized according to accepted descriptors. Frequencies were presented; associations between outcome domain and DBS type were also reported (Chi-square test of independence).
RESULTS: A total of 344 trials were included in the review from an initial 14,793 titles / title and abstracts screened. Most involved children (n = 215), most were from India (n = 104), involving basic dental care (n = 117). The median number of outcome measures per trial was four (range = 1-12); 1,317 individual outcomes were reported, categorized as: psychological (n = 501, 38.0%); physiological (n = 491, 37.3%), behavioral (n = 123, 9.3%) or, treatment-related (n = 202, 15.3%). DBS interventions were split between 239 (45.7%) pharmacological and 283 (54.1%) non-pharmacological; 96.6% of interventions mapped to accepted descriptors. A significant relationship was noted between the type of intervention and the outcome domain reported.
CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate massive variation in outcome measures of DBS interventions that likely lead to unnecessary heterogeneity, selective reporting, and questionable relevance in the literature. A large range of DBS interventions were mapped according to BeSiDe list. There is a need for consensus on a core outcome set across the spectrum of DBS techniques.
METHOD: This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2020) statement. The initial electronic search yielded a total of 3710 articles. The search identified 2354 potential papers after removing duplicates and 2301 articles were excluded by title and abstract. The full texts of the remaining 53 articles and nine articles from the citation searching were screened and 15 articles matched the inclusion criteria. The Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis resulted in four main themes which were educational intervention, physical intervention, clinical intervention, and a combination of both educational and clinical intervention.
CONCLUSION: We presented the findings in a narrative synthesis with the primary outcomes which served as answers to our main research question that prompted this systematic review.
METHODS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study design was used to recruit a purposive sample of foster carers in Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom, from a range of backgrounds (maximum variation sampling). Participants were aged 21 years and older and provided full-time foster care for children for a minimum of 1 year. The foster carers took part in focus groups that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed a five-step IPA process, which included reading the transcripts, note taking, identifying emerging themes, connecting related themes and writing up the final themes. Iterative data gathering and analysis continued to reach thematic saturation.
RESULTS: Three focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 12 foster carers. Eight of the 12 participants had fostered children for more than 10 years and they were currently fostering 22 children aged five to 18 years old. Four themes emerged from within the context of the supportive and nurturing foster family environment that described how foster carers' responded to and managed the oral health of their foster children. Foster carers had adopted an oral health caregiving role, "in loco parentis" responding to the poor oral health of their vulnerable foster children. They were hypervigilant about establishing and monitoring children's oral health routines and taking their children to see a dentist; these were seen as an integral part of being good foster carers. They were knowledgeable about the causes of children's oral ill health, gained from their own dental experiences and from looking after their own children. Foster carers had experienced tensions while adopting this oral health caregiving role with dentists who had refused to see younger children. Foster carers had also experienced tensions with teenage foster children who questioned their parental authority and legitimate right to set rules about smoking and healthy eating.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore foster carers' oral health perspectives and the foster family environment within the oral health context. It highlights the unrecognized and important role that foster carers have in improving the oral health of vulnerable children. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between foster carers and dentists and to support the development of health and social care interventions to improve foster children's oral health.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of various interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 May 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 May 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 May 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We also searched the reference lists of included and excluded trials for any randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications or oro-antral fistulae due to dental procedures. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We excluded studies on participants who had oro-antral communications, fistulae or both related to Caldwell-Luc procedure or surgical excision of tumours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. Two review authors assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data independently. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included only one study in this review, which compared two surgical interventions: pedicled buccal fat pad flap and buccal flap for the treatment of oro-antral communications. The study involved 20 participants. The risk of bias was unclear. The relevant outcome reported in this trial was successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication.The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was very low. The study did not find evidence of a difference between interventions for the successful (complete) closure of an oro-antral communication (RR 1.00, 95% Cl 0.83 to 1.20) one month after the surgery. All oro-antral communications in both groups were successfully closed so there were no adverse effects due to treatment failure.We did not find trials evaluating any other intervention for treating oro-antral communications or fistulae due to dental procedures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence from a single small study that compared pedicled buccal fat pad and buccal flap. The evidence was insufficient to judge whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of these interventions as all oro-antral communications in the study were successfully closed by one month after surgery. Large, well-conducted RCTs investigating different interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae caused by dental procedures are needed to inform clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To assess methods of treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 01 August 2019. Additionally, we searched nine online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean database, African Index Medicus, Index Medicus for South East Asia Region, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Indexing of Indian Medical Journals). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and contacted haematologists, experts in fields of dentistry, organizations, pharmaceutical companies and researchers working in this field. Date of last search: 07 November 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled studies of treatments for dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the included studies using standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no studies were identified for inclusion in the review.
MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled studies were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled studies assessing interventions for the treatment of dental complications in people with sickle cell disease. There is an important need for randomised controlled studies in this area, so as to identify the most effective and safe method for treating dental complications in people with sickle cell disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the management of gagging in people undergoing dental treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 March 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 March 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 18 March 2019), AMED Ovid (1985 to 18 March 2019), and the proceedings of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) online (2001 to 18 March 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also conducted forwards citation searching on the included studies via Google Scholar. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving people who were given a pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention to manage gagging that interfered with dental treatment. We excluded quasi-RCTs. We excluded trials with participants who had central or peripheral nervous system disorders, who had oral lesions or were on systemic medications that might affect the gag sensation, or had undergone surgery which might alter anatomy permanently.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials at unclear risk of bias with 328 participants (263 adults and 65 children who were four years or older), in which one trial compared acupuncture and acupressure (with thumb, device and sea band) at P6 (point located three-finger breadths below the wrist on the inner forearm in between the two tendons) to sham acupuncture and acupressure with and without sedation. One trial compared acupuncture at P6 point to sham acupuncture. These trials reported both completion of dental procedure and reduction in gagging (assessor and patient reported) as their outcomes. One cross-over and one split-mouth trial studied the effect of laser at P6 point compared to control. One trial reported reduction in gagging and another reported presence or absence of gagging during dental procedure. Acupuncture at P6 showed uncertain evidence regarding the successful completion of dental procedure (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.01; two trials, 59 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain evidence regarding the reduction in gagging (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.89; one trial, 26 participants; very low-certainty evidence) in comparison to sham acupuncture. Acupuncture at P6 with sedation did not show any difference when compared to sham acupuncture with sedation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure using thumb pressure with or without sedation showed no clear difference in completing dental procedure (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.10; one trial, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.46; one trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively), or reduction in gagging (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.23; one trial, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; one trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively) when compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation. Acupressure at P6 with device showed uncertain evidence regarding the successful completion of dental procedure (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.18; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain evidence regarding the reduction in gagging (RR 3.94, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.53; one trial, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to sham acupressure. However, device combined with sedation showed no difference for either outcome (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; one trial, 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.69; one trial, 27 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively). Acupressure using a sea band with or without sedation showed no clear difference in completing dental procedure (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; one trial, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.16; one trial, 19 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively), or reduction in gagging (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; one trial, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.72 to 10.14; one trial, 19 participants; very low-certainty evidence; respectively) when compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation. Laser at P6 showed a difference in absence of gagging (odds ratio (OR) 86.33, 95% CI 29.41 to 253.45; one trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and reduction in gagging (MD 1.80, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.07; one trial, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence) during dental procedure when compared to dummy laser application. No noteworthy adverse effects were reported. For acupuncture at P6, the trial authors were unsure whether the reported adverse effects were due to participant anxiety or due to the intervention. None of the trials on acupressure or laser reported on this outcome. We did not find trials evaluating any other interventions used to manage gagging in people undergoing dental treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence from four trials that was insufficient to conclude if there is any benefit of acupuncture, acupressure or laser at P6 point in reducing gagging and allowing successful completion of dental procedures. We did not find any evidence on any other interventions for managing the gag reflex during dental treatment. More well-designed and well-reported trials evaluating different interventions are needed.