MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p
METHODS: A search for relevant articles published from inception until May 2020 was performed using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google scholar and journal databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adopted for the conduct of the systematic review. Using RevMan 5.3 software, the most pertinent data were extracted and pooled for quantitative analysis with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was analyzed by using Cochran Q test and I squared statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 5 studies involving 855 mixed dentition patients with arch length preservation therapy were included in the qualitative analysis. Pooled estimate of the data from two studies revealed 3.14 times higher odds of developing mandibular second molar eruption difficulty due to arch length preservation strategies using lingual holding arch (95% CI; OR 1.10-8.92). There was no heterogeneity found in the analysis. The certainty levels were graded as very low.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that arch length preservation strategies pose a risk for development of mandibular second molar eruption disturbances, but the evidence was of very low quality. Registration number: CRD42019116643.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2306 subjects were selected from the patient archives of a large dental hospital and the chronological age for each subject was recorded. This age was assigned to each specific stage of dental development for each tooth to create a RDS. To validate this RDS, a further 484 subjects were randomly chosen from the patient archives and their dental age was assessed based on the scores from the RDS. Dental age was estimated using meta-analysis command corresponding to random effects statistical model. Chronological age (CA) and Dental Age (DA) were compared using the paired t-test.
RESULTS: The overall difference between the chronological and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.05 years (2.6 weeks) for males and 0.03 years (1.6 weeks) for females. The paired t-test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the chronological and dental age (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The validated southern Chinese reference dataset based on dental maturation accurately estimated the chronological age.
METHODS: Two hundred and sixty six dental panoramic radiographs of subjects belonging to southern Chinese ethnicity were scored and dental age (DA) was estimated from three reference datasets: French-Canadian, United Kingdom (UK) Caucasian and southern Chinese. Statistical significance was set at p 0.05). The southern Chinese RDS estimated the age of 80% of subjects within ±12 months range, and 90% of subjects within ±18 months range (p
DESIGN: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sample size calculation was conducted and 320 radiographs of subjects with and without supernumerary teeth (ST) were obtained from the archives of a teaching hospital. The subjects in both groups were age and sex matched. All the subjects belong to southern Chinese ethnicity aged 2 to 14 years. The left-side dentition was scored, and dental age (DA) was estimated by obtaining scores from the southern Chinese dental reference dataset. Paired t test was used to calculate the difference between chronological age and dental age (CA-DA) for boys and girls with and without ST and further based on the number and position of ST.
RESULTS: The difference between chronological age and dental age (CA-DA) was 0.10 years for boys and 0.19 years for girls with ST whilst 0.01 and 0.05 years for boys and girls without ST (p > 0.05). The boys with bilateral ST showed significant delay in dental development of 0.23 years (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research question was created based on the PICO strategy. Two reviewers independently performed a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria to the selected articles, a systematic data extraction sheet was constructed. The selected articles were assessed using methodological quality scoring protocol. The risk of bias in selected studies was critically assessed by two reviewers.
RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were included for the systematic review. The included studies were heterogeneous in study design; hence, meta-analysis was not performed. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. Overall, UAI showed superior reduction of microbial counts, resulting in better disinfection compared to other irrigation systems chosen for comparison in this review.
CONCLUSION: The use of UAI can bring about superior microbial reduction within the root canal system compared to other irrigant activation techniques.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Activation of irrigants with ultrasonic brings about significant bacterial reduction from the root canal systems compared to other methods of irrigant activation and conventional syringe irrigation. This might help in improving the outcome of root canal treatment.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles in the electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility and data extraction. SRs and MAs on interventional studies with a minimum of 2 therapeutic strategies in endodontics were included in this SR. Methodologic and reporting quality were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cohen kappa statistic. Statistical analysis with the level of significance at P
Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. The additional hand search was performed from the reference list of the eligible studies. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
Results: Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. QMix was found to have a higher antimicrobial activity compared to 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, and grape seed extract (GSE). QMix had higher antibacterial efficacy compared to NaOCl, only when used for a longer time (10 minutes) and with higher volume (above 3 mL).
Conclusions: QMix has higher antibacterial activity than 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, MTAD, 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, GSE and NaOCl with lower concentration. To improve the effectiveness, QMix is to use for a longer time and at a higher volume.
Trial Registration: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Identifier: CRD42018096763.