Search

Purpose: The current study aims to evaluate bite force, perception of orofacial pain, and treatment satisfaction of patients with bruxism using two protocols of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) injections. Material and Methods: Two groups of patients seeking bruxism treatment and presenting bilateral orofacial pain of muscle origin were randomly created according to BTX-A injection sites: masseter muscle only, bilaterally (3 points in each muscle, 10 U per point), and masseter and temporal muscles (3 points in each masseter muscle and 2 points in each temporal muscle, 10 U per point). The patients were evaluated preoperatively and longitudinally at 15, 90, 120, and 180 days by the use of visual analog scales for pain and treatment satisfaction and a gnathodynamometer for bite force recording. Results: The final sample included 10 participants in each group. Both groups presented mitigation of pain at 15, 90, 120, and 180 days in comparison with baseline; however, reduction in the posterior bite force was noted only at 15, 90, and 120 days. Quite high treatment satisfaction was reported from both groups at 15, 90, 120, and 180 days. No differences were observed between the groups in all evaluations and study periods. Conclusion: In general, considering pain relief, reduction in bite force, and treatment satisfaction, both protocols of BTX-A seem to be somewhat equally effective in the short-term management (up to 120 days) of bruxism.

Background: There are several systematic reviews of multiple implant loading techniques, but results are conflicting. Aim: To perform an umbrella review on methodological quality of systematic reviews about techniques for loading multiple dental implants. Material and methods: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were searched up to December 31, 2019. Unpublished literature was searched through OpenGray and references of included articles were manually verified. Eligibility criteria were: articles had to (1) be about multiple dental implants; (2) mention the moment of loading; (3) be a systematic review. Two independent reviewers participated in the entire process. Qualitative description of included studies as well as methodological quality measurement and risk of bias through AMSTAR and ROBIS were performed. Results: 21 reviews were included. Thirteen stated that there was a similarity between loading techniques, two did not affirm which one was more appropriate and six mentioned that conventional technique was better. Eight papers were classified as high risk of bias, twelve as low and one as uncertain risk. Conclusion: When evaluating only studies with a low risk of bias, there are no significant differences in implant loading time.