Search

Background: This scoping review explored current trends and available evidence in Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in the treatment and prevention of osteoradionecrosis., Methods: The search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and grey literature on January 15, 2024, without language or time restrictions., Results: 19 studies were included. The application of LLLT protocols was 58 % for therapeutic use, 21 % for preventive use, and 21 % for a combination of both. Regarding the use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), 41 % of the studies employed this technique, which utilized methylene blue as the photosensitizer. For treatments associated with photobiomodulation, 57 % reported pharmacological treatment, 29 % surgical treatment, 11 % prescribed chlorhexidine mouthwashes, and 4 % other therapies. In vivo studies used diode lasers emitting low incident power densities in the near-infrared wavelength (67 %) at 780 to 904 nm. In comparison, case reports also used diode lasers emitting low incident power densities in the red and near-infrared wavelength (64 %) at 660 to 904 nm. The continuous emission mode was utilized in 83 % of in vivo studies and 17 % of the case reports. None of the studies included in this review reported all laser parameters., Conclusions: In general, studies suggested that LLLT can be used for therapeutic and preventive applications in the management of osteoradionecrosis. However, clinical studies are case reports and the variability in laser parameters across the included studies poses challenges for establishing standardized treatment protocols. The lack of comprehensive data on laser parameters underscores the need for future research to focus on standardizing LLLT protocols and conducting well-designed, large-scale clinical trials. This approach will help to better evaluate the effectiveness of LLLT and potentially integrate it more reliably into clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Leukemia is the most common malignancy in pediatric patients, and it has extramedullary involvement. Oral manifestations have been reported in the literature, but to the authors' knowledge, no systematic review has presented the general prevalence of these manifestations. This review aimed to determine the prevalence of oral manifestations in pediatric patients with leukemia., Types of Studies Reviewed: The authors conducted a search of PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Web of Science, and Scopus. Additional searches were carried out in the gray literature and via hand searching of reference lists of included studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies that investigated the prevalence and occurrence of oral lesions in pediatric patients with leukemia. Two independent reviewers collected data from the selected articles in a prepiloted Excel (Microsoft) spreadsheet., Results: From 67 included studies, 79 oral manifestations were reported. The most frequent alteration in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia during the treatment were caries (81%), with moderate certainty of evidence. The prevalence of gingivitis was 73%, oral mucositis was 50%, and lymphadenopathy was 45%, with very low certainty of evidence. After the therapy, the prevalence of dental anomalies was 61%, and the most common were enamel hypoplasia (40%), dental agenesis (22%), and microdontia (22%), presenting very low certainty of evidence. The high heterogeneity among studies contributed significantly to reduce the certainty of the evidence., Practical Implications: The findings of this study show that pediatric patients with leukemia have oral manifestations predominantly during and after treatment. Health care professionals must be aware of oral manifestations and refer the patients to dentists during the oncological treatment. Thus, the dentist must support pediatric patients with leukemia to help ensure a better quality of life., Competing Interests: Disclosures None of the authors reported any disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Systematic reviews (SRs) of preclinical studies are marked with poor methodological quality. In vitro studies lack assessment tools to improve the quality of preclinical research. This methodological study aimed to identify, collect, and analyze SRs based on cell culture studies to highlight the current appraisal tools utilized to support the development of a validated critical appraisal tool for cell culture in vitro research. SRs, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses that included cell culture studies and used any type of critical appraisal tool were included. Electronic search, study selection, data collection and methodological quality (MQ) assessment tool were realized. Further, statistical analyses regarding possible associations and correlations between MQ and collected data were performed. After the screening process, 82 studies remained for subsequent analysis. A total of 32 different appraisal tools were identified. Approximately 60% of studies adopted pre-structured tools not designed for cell culture studies. The most frequent instruments were SYRCLE (n = 14), OHAT (n = 9), Cochrane Collaboration's tool (n = 7), GRADE (n = 6), CONSORT (n = 5), and ToxRTool (n = 5). The studies were divided into subgroups to perform statistical analyses. A significant association (OR = 5.00, 95% CI = 1.54-16.20, p = 0.008) was found between low MQ and chronic degenerative disorders as topic of SR. Several challenges in collecting information from the included studies led to some modifications related to the previously registered protocol. These results may serve as a basis for further development of a critical appraisal tool for cell culture studies capable of capturing all the essential factors related to preclinical research, therefore enhancing the practice of evidence-based., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: This scoping review aimed to determine the frequency of different teaching methodologies, tools and platforms applied in dental education during the COVID-19 pandemic., Materials and Methods: The search strategy was performed in six databases and grey literature. A total of 28 questionnaire-based studies were included, without language or time restriction, from 20 different countries., Results: Six thousand five hundred sixty-five participants were assessed: 84% undergraduates, 9% of faculty members, 5% of postgraduate students/residents/trainees and 2% of dental schools/residency programs. The pooled eligible data for teaching methodologies were 62% of a combination of different methods (95% CI, 35.5% to 82.3%), 23% a combination of synchronous and asynchronous formats (95% CI, 8.2% to 50.2%) and 15% for only synchronous lectures (95% CI, 4.3% to 42.2%). The reported tools were laptops (40%), smartphones (40%), tablets (40%), desktops (20%), Blackboard (20%), Respondus Lockdown Browser (20%), eProctor (20%) and PowerPoint (20%). The most used platforms were Zoom (70.6%), Microsoft Teams (23.5%) and Cisco Webex (23.5%). A better time management (17.9%; 95% CI, 7.9% to 35.6%) and the possibility of revision with additional notes (14.3%; 95% CI, 5.7% to 31.5%) was the greatest advantages related to dental e-learning, while the increased levels of anxiety/stress/burnout/exhaustion (35.7%; 95% CI, 21% to 54.2%) and internet connection problems (35.7%; 95% CI, 21% to 54.2%) was the most cited disadvantages., Conclusion: This scoping review showed promising blended teaching methodologies, tools and platforms in the dental education profile. The evidence suggests that e-learning technologies can widely contribute to dental education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study makes a major contribution to research by assessing the impact of COVID restrictions on dental education and further studies are needed to identify how restrictions in dental practice will affect future professionals., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)