MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Google search was undertaken of all controlled clinical trials on the effects of corticosteroids on pain, swelling and trismus after lower third molar surgery. The review was limited to studies published over the last 10 years (2006-2015).
RESULTS: Of the 46 initially retrieved articles, 34 were finally included. Eleven studies compared the effect of 2 similar (but different dose) or different group of corticosteroids. Thirty-one studies reported the effects of corticosteroids on all sequale, 2 reported the outcome on swelling and trismus and another 1 on swelling and pain only. In 16 of the studies, corticosteroid use resulted in significant reductions in pain after third molar removal. Twenty-two out of 29 studies reported reduced swelling against negative control while 18 out of 25 studies reported improved mouth opening. Fourteen studies reported the benefit of corticosteroids on all 3 sequelae, with 71.4% resulted from the use of methylprednisolone.
CONCLUSION: Although there are some conflicting effects, the results of this analysis shows in general the benefits derived from short-term use of corticosteroids in relation to pain, swelling and trismus following third molar surgical extraction, with no side effects observed.
FUNDING: This work was supported by the University of Malaya's High Impact Research grant UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/05.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included 65 patients who required surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars with Class II or position B impaction (Pell and Gregory classification). Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, or placebo (control). Surgery was performed with patients under local anesthesia. Baseline measurements were obtained preoperatively, and subsequent assessments were made on postoperative day 1, 2, 5, and 7 to measure postoperative facial swelling by use of 2 linear measurements: interincisal mouth opening width and visual analog scale score for pain. The amount of analgesics consumed was recorded. Wound healing also was assessed on postoperative day 7. Descriptive and multivariate statistics were computed, and significance was set at P
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to summarize findings from the available literature to provide up-to-date information on sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma and to analyse clinical, radiological, and histopathological features to obtain information for and against as an odontogenic malignancy.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of literature by searching Pubmed, EBSCO and Web of Science databases, according to PRISMA guidelines. All the cases reported as sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma in English were included. Data retrieved from the articles were gender, age, clinical features, site, relevant medical history, radiographical findings, histopathological findings, immunohistochemical findings, treatments provided and prognosis.
RESULTS: Mean age at diagnosis of sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was 54.4 years with a very slight female predilection. Sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was commonly reported in the mandible as an expansile swelling which can be asymptomatic or associated with pain or paraesthesia. They appeared radiolucent with cortical resorption in radiograph evaluation. Histologically, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma was composed of epithelioid cells in dense, fibrous, or sclerotic stroma with equivocal perineural invasion. Mild cellular atypia and inconspicuous mitotic activity were observed. There is no specific immunohistochemical marker for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. AE1/AE3, CK 5/6, CK 14, CK19, p63 and E-cadherin were the widely expressed markers for sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma. Surgical resection was the main treatment provided with no recurrence in most cases. No cases of metastasis were reported.
CONCLUSION: From the literature available, sclerosing odontogenic carcinoma is justifiable as a malignant tumor with no or unknown metastatic potential which can be adequately treated with surgical resection. However, there is insufficient evidence for histological grading or degree of malignancy of this tumor.
METHODS: The specific PIO questions were as follows: Population: Patients with periapical periodontitis either before or after non-surgical endodontic therapy.
INTERVENTION: IR performed with retrograde preparation and retrograde filling.
OUTCOMES: the healing, treatment complications, and the factors influencing these outcomes after IR. Electronic and hand searches were performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. The risk of bias was performed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool, and each study was rated as "Good", "Fair" or "Poor". The analyses were performed on the treatment outcome (healing and complications), and the factors influencing the outcome of the procedure.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. One was a prospective cohort study, and the other 13 were retrospective cohort studies. Overall, the evidence of this review was of poor-to-fair quality. The pooled healing rate was 80.2%, and there was a 21.7% of complication rate. Longer follow-up period, the presence of perio-endo disease, the use of non-bioceramic material as retrograde filling, longer extraoral time, and maxillary molar were found to be associated with lower healing rates. However, the differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The present review showed IR yielded a good overall healing rate with a low complication rate. Taking the quality of evidence into account, more high-quality studies are required to evaluate the validity of the factors that may influence the treatment outcome of IR.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of 355 participants, including 280 with oral lesions/variants was conducted. Adults aged ≥18 treated at tertiary referral centres were included. Images of the oral cavity were taken using MeMoSA®. The identification of the presence of lesion/variant and referral decision made using MeMoSA® were compared to clinical oral examination, using kappa statistics for intra-rater agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, concordance and F1 score were computed. Images were reviewed by an off-site specialist and inter-rater agreement was evaluated. Images from sequential clinical visits were compared to evaluate observable changes in the lesions.
RESULTS: Kappa values comparing MeMoSA® with clinical oral examination in detecting a lesion and referral decision was 0.604 and 0.892, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for referral decision were 94.0% and 95.5%. Concordance and F1 score were 94.9% and 93.3%, respectively. Inter-rater agreement for a referral decision was 0.825. Progression or regression of lesions were systematically documented using MeMoSA®.
CONCLUSION: Referral decisions made through MeMoSA® is highly comparable to clinical examination demonstrating it is a reliable telemedicine tool to facilitate the identification of high-risk lesions for early management.