Search

Background: Women are typically diagnosed with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer around the postmenopausal period when declining estrogen levels initiate changes in lipid profiles. Aromatase inhibitors (AI) are used to prevent the progression of cancer; however, a further reduction in estrogen levels may have detrimental effects on lipid levels, which was our working hypothesis. Methods: Our meta-analysis was conducted on the lipid profiles of postmenopausal breast cancer patients at baseline and at different treatment time points. Results: We identified 15 studies, including 1708 patients. Studies using anastrozole (ANA), exemestane (EXE), letrozole (LET), and tamoxifen (TMX) were involved. Subgroup analyses revealed that 3- and 12-month administrations of LET and EXE lead to negative changes in lipid profiles that tend to alter the lipid profile undesirably, unlike ANA and TMX. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, despite statistically significant results, EXE and LET may not be sufficient to cause severe dyslipidemia in patients without cardiovascular comorbidities according to the AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol. However, the results may raise the question of monitoring the effects of AIs in patients, especially those with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors such as dyslipidemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of scanning technologies for constructing facial prostheses on human faces. Study selection: Our systematic search was performed on five databases. Studies reporting on human volunteers (P) whose faces were scanned with a scanning technology were eligible. The anthropometrical interlandmark distances (ILDs) were used as indicators of accuracy; the ILDs are measured on the virtual models (I) and directly on the faces (C). The virtual models deviated from their true values (O). Studies reporting the measurements on patients with or without facial deformities were included, but cadavers or inanimate objects were reasons for exclusion. We performed a mean difference (MD) / standardized MD analysis with a random effect model. The difficulties regarding the scanning procedure mentioned in the articles were also assessed. Results: We found 3723 records after duplicate removal. Twenty five articles were eligible for the qualitative review, and ten articles were included in the quantitative synthesis. Eight different ILDs were compared in MD analyses. The differences were between -0.54-0.43 mm. We also performed a regional three-dimensional analysis to compare scanning technologies in each major region. No significant differences were found in any of the regions and axes. The most mentioned difficulties were artifacts due to motion or blinking. Conclusions: The results suggest no systematic skew in linear dimensions neither between direct caliper measurements nor between measurements on the scanned models, scanning technologies, or facial regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Bracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments. Objective To compare the bond failures of different orthodontic materials based on the results of available clinical studies. Search methods A systematic search of clinical trials was performed in the Cochrane, Embase, and Pubmed databases with no limitations. The list of investigated techniques contained conventional acid-etch primer (CM-AEP), self-etch primer (SEP), self-cure resin (SCR), and simple or resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) materials and procedures. Selection criteria Clinical studies reporting the failure rate of bonded brackets after using direct adhesive techniques on buccal sites of healthy teeth were included. Data collection and analysis Bracket failure rates from eligible studies were extracted by two authors independently. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model with DerSimonian–Laird estimation. Results Thirty-four publications, involving 1221 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the risk of bracket failures between SEP and CM-AEP. After 6, 12, and 18 months of bonding, the values of RR were 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.61], 1.37 (95% CI, 0.98–1.92), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72–1.20), respectively. At 18 months, bracket failure was 4.9 and 5.2% for SEP and CM-AEP, respectively. Heterogeneity was good or moderate (I 2 < 42.2%). The results of RM-GIC at 12 months indicated a 57% lower risk of bracket failure using SCR as compared with RM-GIC (RR: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24–0.61). At 18 months, bracket failures for SCR and RM-GIC were 15.8 and 36.6%, respectively (RR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37–0.52, I 2 = 78.9%), demonstrating three to six times higher failure rate than in the case of etching primer applications. Limitations A major limitation of the present work is that the included clinical trials, with no exceptions, showed variable levels of risk of bias. Another possible problem affecting the outcome is the difference between the clustering effects of the split mouth and the parallel group bracket allocation methods. Conclusions and implications The results revealed no significant difference between SEP and CM-AEP up to 18 months after application. RM-GIC had much worse failure rates than acid-etching methods; additionally, the superiority of SCR over RM-GIC was evident, indicating strong clinical relevance. Registration Prospero with CRD42020163362. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Teledentistry (TD) can offer a wide range of possibilities in the field of oral medicine. Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) are hard to detect, and even harder to diagnose correctly. With the help of TD, OPMDs can be detected and diagnosed by a remote specialist. Our aim was to investigate whether TD could provide a reliable diagnostic method compared with clinical oral examination (COE) in the diagnosis of OPMDs. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in three databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL) until November 2021. We included studies that compared telediagnosis and COE, both made by experts. Pooled specificity and sensitivity were calculated and visualized on a two-dimensional plot. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and the level of evidence is shown with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results: Of the 7,608 studies, 13 were included in the qualitative and 9 in the quantitative synthesis. Using TD tools in the detection of oral lesions (OLs) showed high specificity (0.92 confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.59-0.99) and sensitivity (0.93 95% CI = 0.17-1.00). In the differential diagnosis of lesions, we found high sensitivity and specificity (0.942 95% CI = 0.826-0.982 and 0.982 95% CI = 0.913-0.997), respectively. We summarized the available data on time-effectiveness, screening person, referral decision, and technical settings. Conclusion: Detecting OLs with TD tools might lead to earlier diagnosis, treatment, and stricter follow-up of OPMD. TD may offer a great substitution for COE in the diagnosis of OLs, and thus, fewer referrals could be made to special care, resulting in a greater number of treated OPMDs.