Search

Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) generate pain and difficulties for mouth opening affecting the patients' quality of life. Ozone is an emerging therapy that has been proposed as a potential treatment, due to that, the evidence about its efficacy should be reviewed. Therefore, this work aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review to address the efficacy of ozone therapy for the treatment of pain and limited mouth opening in patients with TMD. The design of the included studies was clinical trials and observational studies, whereas, a series of cases, in vivo, and in vitro studies were excluded. The search was performed in PubMed, ClinicalTrials, Web of Science, and Scopus. Gray literature was searched at Google Scholar. Relevant data of all included studies were recorded. The risk of bias (using RoB 2) and the quality (using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments were carried out. Meta-analyses using random-effects models of pain and maximal mouth opening data were performed. This review included 8 studies with 404 participants suffering limited function and pain related to TMD. At the overall bias of the studies, 25% exhibited some concerns and 75% had high risk; and the quality of the studies was low. The analysis of the included studies suggests that ozone therapy can diminish pain and improve the maximal mouth opening in TMD patients. However, there is no conclusive evidence of ozone therapy as a superior treatment for TMD compared with occlusal splint and pharmacotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of the interproximal enamel reduction (IPR) techniques used in orthodontics. Six databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, ScienceDirect and Clinical Trials. Grey literature was sourced from Google Scholar. The risk of bias was assessed by Risk of Bias 2, Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and Robins‐I depending on the design of the evaluated study. Additionally, the quality of the included studies was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. This systematic review included randomized clinical trials, non‐randomized clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that reported the effects of IPR for orthodontic purposes on the teeth and periodontium. Case reports, and in vitro and in vivo studies were excluded. Eight clinical studies match the eligibility criteria. As a result, no demineralization of the enamel, no increase in caries incidence, no periodontal changes or dental sensitivity was found after IPR. Also, considering the duration of orthodontic treatment, IPR resulted in a quicker technique than dental extractions. At the risk‐of‐bias assessment, all observational studies showed low risk, the non‐randomized clinical trial had a critical bias, and all randomized clinical trials exhibited some concerns. The overall quality of the studies was found to be between low and very low. After the analysis of the data from included studies, it was concluded that the IPR procedures could be useful to treat dental crowding in orthodontic clinical practice without negative effects. However, more randomized controlled clinical trials with a longer follow‐up time and high‐quality studies are required to generate robust statements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]