Association between arch perimeter management and the occurrence of mandibular second molar eruption disturbances:

ABSTRACT Objectives To investigate the association between the management of mandibular arch perimeter during development of the dentition and its effects on second permanent molar (M2) eruption. Materials and Methods Seven electronic databases were searched without restrictions up to June 2020. Assessment was performed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized clinical trials (non-RCT). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated from random-effects meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results Five non-RCTs, with serious to moderate risk of bias, were included. A low certainty of evidence indicated that individuals undergoing mandibular arch perimeter management by controlling the position of the first molar had a high prevalence of M2 eruption difficulties. The odds of eruption disorders was 7.5 times higher (OR: 7.57, [3.72, 15.41], P < .001) in treated individuals. Subgroup analysis revealed that appliances that increased the arch perimeter lead to a greater chance of eruption disorders compared to appliances that only maintained the perimeter. The predictive factors for the M2 eruption difficulty were its previous mesioangulation in relation to the first molar (>24°) and the treatment time (>2 years). Conclusions Mandibular arch perimeter management during development of the dentition leads to an increase in the occurrence of M2 eruption difficulties. The identification of possible risk factors as well as the choice of the appropriate appliance type and the monitoring of these individuals seems to be essential to avoid undesirable effects with this therapy.

Download Full-text

Does arch length preservation in mixed dentition children affect mandibular second permanent molar eruption? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-021-01755-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Sivakumar Arunachalam ◽

Indumathi Sivakumar ◽

Jayakumar Jayaraman ◽

Jitendra Sharan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mixed Dentition ◽

Mandibular Incisor ◽

Second Molar ◽

Permanent Molar ◽

Pertinent Data ◽

Registration Number ◽

Mandibular Second Molar ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Arch length preservation strategies utilize leeway space or E-space in the mixed dentition to resolve mild to moderate mandibular incisor crowding. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to analyze the effects of arch length preservation strategies in on mandibular second permanent molar eruption. 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.

Download Full-text

Acupuncture for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies ◽

10.1186/s12906-021-03277-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ran Liu ◽

Kun Zhang ◽

Qiu-yu Tong ◽

Guang-wei Cui ◽

Wen Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Post Stroke ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Post Stroke Depression ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Acupuncture for post-stroke depression (PSD) has been evolving, but uncertainty remains. To assess the existing evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for PSD, we sought to draw conclusions by synthesizing RCTs. Methods An exhaustive literature search was conducted in seven electronic databases from their inception dates to April 19, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on this topic. The primary RCTs included in the SRs/MAs were identified. We also conducted a supplementary search for RCTs published from January 1, 2015, to May 12, 2020. Two reviewers extracted data separately and pooled data using RevMan 5.3 software. The quality of evidence was critically appraised with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results A total of 17 RCTs involving 1402 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that participants who received a combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments exhibited significantly lower scores on the HAM-D17, HAM-D24 and HAM-D (MD, − 5.08 [95% CI, − 6.48 to − 3.67], I2 = 0%), (MD, − 9.72 [95% CI, − 14.54 to − 4.91], I2 = 65%) and (MD, − 2.72 [95% CI, − 3.61 to − 1.82], respectively) than those who received conventional treatment. However, there was no significant difference in acupuncture versus antidepressants in terms of the 17-item, 24-item and HAM-D scales (MD, − 0.43 [95% CI, − 1.61 to 0.75], I2 = 51%), (MD, − 3.09 [95% CI, − 10.81 to 4.63], I2 = 90%) and (MD, − 1.55 [95% CI, − 4.36 to 1.26], I2 = 95%, respectively). For adverse events, acupuncture was associated with fewer adverse events than antidepressants (RR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.39], I2 = 35%), but there was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events between the combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21 to 1.83], I2 = 38%). The quality of evidence was low to very low due to the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. Conclusions The current review indicates that acupuncture has greater effect on PSD and better safety profile than antidepressants, but high-quality evidence evaluating acupuncture for PSD is still needed.

Download Full-text

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-020-01516-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Steven Kwasi Korang ◽

Sophie Juul ◽

Emil Eik Nielsen ◽

Joshua Feinberg ◽

Faiza Siddiqui ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Individual Patient Data ◽

Viral Vector ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Download Full-text

Comparing the Effects of Docosahexaenoic and Eicosapentaenoic Acids on Inflammation Markers Using Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

Advances in Nutrition ◽

10.1093/advances/nmaa086 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Cécile Vors ◽

Janie Allaire ◽

Sonia Blanco Mejia ◽

Tauseef A Khan ◽

John L Sievenpiper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Necrosis Factor Alpha ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Tnf Α ◽

Mean Differences ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT Recent data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest that DHA may have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than EPA. This body of evidence has not yet been quantitatively reviewed. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of DHA and EPA on several markers of systemic inflammation by pairwise and network meta-analyses of RCTs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched through to September 2019. We included RCTs of ≥7 d on adults regardless of health status that directly compared the effects of DHA with EPA and RCTs of indirect comparisons, in which the effects of DHA or EPA were compared individually to a control fatty acid. Differences in circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and adiponectin were the primary outcome measures. Data were pooled by pairwise and network meta-analysis and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic) in the pairwise meta-analysis. Inconsistency and transitivity were evaluated in the network meta-analysis. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Eligibility criteria were met by 5 RCTs (N = 411) for the pairwise meta-analysis and 20 RCTs (N = 1231) for the network meta-analysis. In the pairwise meta-analysis, DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.14 mg/L (95% CI: –0.57, 0.85); I2 = 61%], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.10 pg/mL (–0.15, 0.34); I2 = 40%], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.10 pg/mL (–0.37, 0.18); I2 = 40%]. In the network meta-analysis, the effects of DHA and EPA on plasma CRP [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.33 mg/L (–0.75, 0.10)], IL-6 [MDDHA versus EPA = 0.09 pg/mL (–0.12, 0.30)], and TNF-α [MDDHA versus EPA = –0.02 pg/mL (–0.25, 0.20)] were also similar. DHA and EPA had similar effects on plasma adiponectin in the network meta-analysis. Results from pairwise and network meta-analyses suggest that supplementation with either DHA or EPA does not differentially modify systemic markers of subclinical inflammation.

Download Full-text

Uprighting Impacted Mandibular Second Molar Using a Skeletal Anchorage: A Case Report

Dentistry Journal ◽

10.3390/dj8040129 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 129

Author(s):

Federica Altieri ◽

Rosanna Guarnieri ◽

Martina Mezio ◽

Gabriella Padalino ◽

Angela Cipollone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Case Report ◽

Treatment Time ◽

Skeletal Anchorage ◽

Impacted Tooth ◽

Short Treatment ◽

Second Molar ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Mandibular Molar ◽

Mandibular Second Molar ◽

The Impact

The aim of this case report is to present an innovative combined orthodontic-surgical technique to disimpact mandibular second molar (MM2) using an orthodontic miniscrew and an elastic chain. The impact on the Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was also evaluated. Using the present techinique, it is possible to expose the impacted tooth, insert a self-drilling miniscrew in the retromolar area, and remove the bud of third mandibular molar. At the same time the orthodontic force is applied with the use of an elastomeric chain that connects the head of miniscrew and vestibular and oral buttons bonded on MM2. A close traction is performed for the whole treatment time without the reactivation of the elastic force. The use of skeletal anchorage allowed the disimpaction of impacted MM2 in a short treatment time (about three months) avoiding the typical biomechanical side effects of traditional orthodontic appliance and increasing the effectiveness of the treatment. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the real advantages and disadvantages of this combined orthodontic-surgical approach.

Download Full-text

Use of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (Covid-19): Systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.02.14.20246454 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Fernando Tortosa ◽

Gabriela Carrasco ◽

Martin Ragusa ◽

Pedro Haluska ◽

Ariel Izcovich

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Treatment Standard ◽

Study Selection

AbstractObjetivesTo assess the effects of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).Study designSystematic review and Meta-analysisData sourcesA systematic search was carried out on the L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19 until October 31, 2020Study selectionRandomized clinical trials in which people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to drug treatment, standard care, or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the recommendation assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, the interventions were classified into groups, from most to least beneficial or harmful.ResultsWe identified 10 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) involving 11854 patients in which convalescent plasma was compared with standard of care or other treatments. The results of five RCTs that evaluated the use of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 did not show significant differences in the effect on mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19.Contribution of the authors

Download Full-text

Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance of Soccer Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach ◽

10.1177/1941738121998712 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194173812199871

Author(s):

Raphael Einsfeld Simões Ferreira ◽

Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽

Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽

Rachel Riera ◽

Ricardo Guilherme Eid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Perceived Exertion ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽

Soccer Players ◽

Meta Analyses

Context: Caffeine is 1 of the most popular supplements consumed by athletes, and the evidence for improving soccer performance remains limited. Objective: To investigate and update the effects (benefits and harms) of caffeine to improve performance on soccer players. Data Sources: Electronic search in Medline (via PubMed), CENTRAL, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS, from inception to March 28, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of caffeine on the performance of soccer players. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Data Extraction: Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 authors using a piloted form. We assessed methodological quality (Cochrane risk-of-bias [RoB] table) and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] approach). Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Overall methodological quality was classified as unclear to low risk of bias. When assessing aerobic endurance, meta-analyses did not demonstrate the differences between caffeine and placebo (mean difference [MD], 44.9 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], −77.7 to 167.6). Similarly, no difference was observed during time to fatigue test (MD, 169.8 seconds; 95% CI, −71.8 to 411.6). Considering anaerobic power, meta-analyses also did not find differences for vertical jump (MD, 1.01 cm; 95% CI, −0.68 to 2.69) and repeated sprint tests (MD, −0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.04), as well as reaction time agility test (MD, 0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04) and rating of perceived exertion (MD, 0.16 points; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.87). Regarding safety, a few minor adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was classified as very low to low. Conclusions: We found no significant improvement in soccer-related performance with caffeine compared with placebo or no intervention. However, caffeine appears to be safe.

Download Full-text

Parent–Infant Interventions to Promote Parental Sensitivity During NICU Hospitalization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Early Intervention ◽

10.1177/1053815121991928 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105381512199192

Author(s):

Andréane Lavallée ◽

Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽

Ariane Ballard ◽

Marilyn Aita

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Standard Care ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Parental Sensitivity ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Implementation Failure ◽

Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of parent–infant interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental sensitivity compared to standard care or active comparators. This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD42016047083). Database searches were performed from inception to 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of 19 studies ( n = 2,111 participants) were included and 14 were suitable to be pooled in our primary outcome meta-analysis. Results show no significant effect of parent–infant interventions over standard care or basic educational programs, on parental sensitivity. Results may not necessarily be due to the ineffectiveness of the interventions but rather due to implementation failure or high risk of bias of included studies.

Download Full-text

Is it necessary for children to receive professional fluoride in addition to regular fluoride toothpaste? Protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037422 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (9) ◽

pp. e037422

Author(s):

Lintong Yu ◽

Xueqian Yu ◽

Yueyang Li ◽

Jun Li ◽

Fang Hua ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Publication Date ◽

Supporting Evidence ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Fluoride Toothpaste ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionRegular toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste is a fundamental intervention for caries prevention. Professional fluoride application (PFA) is widely considered a beneficial supplement to the routine use of fluoride toothpaste. However, some recent studies have failed to demonstrate the preventive effect of PFA. In addition, an increasing number of studies have highlighted the potential adverse effects of fluoride. However, little information exists on the effectiveness of additional PFA. The objective of this review is to systematically analyse the efficacy of PFA in addition to regular fluoride toothpaste among children under the age of 16.Method and analysisWe will search the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomised controlled trials without language or publication date restrictions. Additional studies will be identified by manually searching the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. At least two authors will carry out the selection of studies independently and in duplicate. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. The random effects model will be used for meta-analyses. The data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.3). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the quality of supporting evidence for each major comparison.Ethics and disseminationThere is no need for ethical approval. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and social networks.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165270

Download Full-text

Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037556 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e037556

Author(s):

Joshua R Ehrlich ◽

Jacqueline Ramke ◽

David Macleod ◽

Bonnielin K Swenor ◽

Helen Burn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Global Health ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Vision Impairment ◽

Published Data ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

Download Full-text