Search

Background: Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation was initiated in the USA in 1945 and is currently practised in about 25 countries around the world; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. Given the continued interest in this topic from health professionals, policy makers and the public, it is important to update and maintain a systematic review that reflects contemporary evidence. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries. To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis. Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 February 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2015); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 February 2015); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 February 2015); Proquest (to 19 February 2015); Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 February 2015); ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 19 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization's WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language of publication or publication status in the searches of the electronic databases. Selection criteria: For caries data, we included only prospective studies with a concurrent control that compared at least two populations - one receiving fluoridated water and the other non-fluoridated water - with outcome(s) evaluated at at least two points in time. For the assessment of fluorosis, we included any type of study design, with concurrent control, that compared populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. We included populations of all ages that received fluoridated water (naturally or artificially fluoridated) or non-fluoridated water. Data collection and analysis: We used an adaptation of the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. We included the following caries indices in the analyses: decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft (deciduous dentition) and DMFT (permanent dentition)), and proportion caries free in both dentitions. For dmft and DMFT analyses we calculated the difference in mean change scores between the fluoridated and control groups. For the proportion caries free we calculated the difference in the proportion caries free between the fluoridated and control groups. For fluorosis data we calculated the log odds and presented them as probabilities for interpretation. Main results: A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis. The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste. There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels. There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels. No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria. With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation. Authors' conclusions: There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries. The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g., use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water, and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults. There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes. There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation (CWF) is currently practised in about 25 countries; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. CWF is of interest to health professionals, policymakers and the public. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015, focusing on contemporary evidence about the effects of CWF on dental caries., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes for the prevention of dental caries. To evaluate the association of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) with dental fluorosis., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases up to 16 August 2023. We also searched two clinical trials registers and conducted backward citation searches., Selection Criteria: We included populations of all ages. For our first objective (effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes on dental caries), we included prospective controlled studies comparing populations receiving fluoridated water with those receiving non-fluoridated or naturally low-fluoridated water. To evaluate change in caries status, studies measured caries both within three years of a change in fluoridation status and at the end of study follow-up. For our second objective (association of water fluoridation with dental fluorosis), we included any study design, with concurrent control, comparing populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. In this update, we did not search for or include new evidence for this objective., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For our first objective, we included the following outcomes as change from baseline: decayed, missing or filled teeth ('dmft' for primary and 'DMFT' for permanent teeth); decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces ('dmfs' for primary and 'DMFS' for permanent teeth); proportion of caries-free participants for both primary and permanent dentition; adverse events. We stratified the results of the meta-analyses according to whether data were collected before or after the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste in 1975. For our second objective, we included dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern, or any level of fluorosis), and any other adverse events reported by the included studies., Main Results: We included 157 studies. All used non-randomised designs. Given the inherent risks of bias in these designs, particularly related to management of confounding factors and blinding of outcome assessors, we downgraded the certainty of all evidence for these risks. We downgraded some evidence for imprecision, inconsistency or both. Evidence from older studies may not be applicable to contemporary societies, and we downgraded older evidence for indirectness. Water fluoridation initiation (21 studies) Based on contemporary evidence (after 1975), the initiation of CWF may lead to a slightly greater change in dmft over time (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.52; P = 0.09; 2 studies, 2908 children; low-certainty evidence). This equates to a difference in dmft of approximately one-quarter of a tooth in favour of CWF; this effect estimate includes the possibility of benefit and no benefit. Contemporary evidence (after 1975) was also available for change in DMFT (4 studies, 2856 children) and change in DMFS (1 study, 343 children); we were very uncertain of these findings. CWF may lead to a slightly greater change over time in the proportion of caries-free children with primary dentition (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; P = 0.12; 2 studies, 2908 children), and permanent dentition (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; P = 0.14; 2 studies, 2348 children). These low-certainty findings (a 4 percentage point difference and 3 percentage point difference for primary and permanent dentition, respectively) favoured CWF. These effect estimates include the possibility of benefit and no benefit. No contemporary data were available for adverse effects. Because of very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure of the size of effects of CWF when using older evidence (from 1975 or earlier) on all outcomes: change in dmft (5 studies, 5709 children), change in DMFT (3 studies, 5623 children), change in proportion of caries-free children with primary dentition (5 studies, 6278 children) or permanent dentition (4 studies, 6219 children), or adverse effects (2 studies, 7800 children). Only one study, conducted after 1975, reported disparities according to socioeconomic status, with no evidence that deprivation influenced the relationship between water exposure and caries status. Water fluoridation cessation (1 study) Because of very low-certainty evidence, we could not determine if the cessation of CWF affected DMFS (1 study conducted after 1975; 2994 children). Data were not available for other review outcomes for this comparison. Association of water fluoridation with dental fluorosis (135 studies) The previous version of this review found low-certainty evidence that fluoridated water may be associated with dental fluorosis. With a fluoride level of 0.7 parts per million (ppm), approximately 12% of participants had fluorosis of aesthetic concern (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants), and approximately 40% had fluorosis of any level (95% CI 35% to 44%; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Because of very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure of other adverse effects (including skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures and skeletal maturity; 5 studies, incomplete participant numbers)., Authors' Conclusions: Contemporary studies indicate that initiation of CWF may lead to a slightly greater reduction in dmft and may lead to a slightly greater increase in the proportion of caries-free children, but with smaller effect sizes than pre-1975 studies. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of cessation of CWF on caries and whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries according to socioeconomic status. We found no eligible studies that report caries outcomes in adults. The implementation or cessation of CWF requires careful consideration of this current evidence, in the broader context of a population's oral health, diet and consumption of tap water, movement or migration, and the availability and uptake of other caries-prevention strategies. Acceptability, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the implementation and monitoring of a CWF programme should also be taken into account., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: There may be an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the evidence so far has been uncertain about whether periodontal therapy can help prevent CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2014, and most recently updated in 2019. Although there is a new multidimensional staging and grading system for periodontitis, we have retained the label 'chronic periodontitis' in this version of the review since available studies are based on the previous classification system., Objectives: To investigate the effects of periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of CVD in people with chronic periodontitis., Search Methods: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 17 November 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP database, and Sciencepaper Online to March 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared active periodontal therapy to no periodontal treatment or a different periodontal treatment. We included studies of participants with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, either with CVD (secondary prevention studies) or without CVD (primary prevention studies)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment independently and in duplicate. They resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or with a third review author. We adopted a formal pilot-tested data extraction form, and used the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: There are no new completed RCTs on this topic since we published our last update in 2019. We included two RCTs in the review. One study focused on the primary prevention of CVD, and the other addressed secondary prevention. We evaluated both as being at high risk of bias. Our primary outcomes of interest were death (all-cause and CVD-related) and all cardiovascular events, measured at one-year follow-up or longer. For primary prevention of CVD in participants with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, one study (165 participants) provided very low-certainty evidence. There was only one death in the study; we were unable to determine whether scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could reduce incidence of all-cause death (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 376.98), or all CVD-related death (Peto OR 7.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.98). We could not exclude the possibility that scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could increase cardiovascular events (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 1.07 to 56.1) compared with supragingival scaling measured at 12-month follow-up. For secondary prevention of CVD, one pilot study randomised 303 participants to receive scaling and root planning plus oral hygiene instruction (periodontal treatment) or oral hygiene instruction plus a copy of radiographs and recommendation to follow-up with a dentist (community care). As cardiovascular events had been measured for different time periods of between 6 and 25 months, and only 37 participants were available with at least one-year follow-up, we did not consider the data to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in this review. The study did not evaluate all-cause death and all CVD-related death. We are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of periodontal therapy on secondary prevention of CVD., Authors' Conclusions: For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people diagnosed with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, very low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of scaling and root planning plus antibiotics compared to supragingival scaling. There is no reliable evidence available regarding secondary prevention of CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and CVD. Further trials are needed to reach conclusions about whether treatment for periodontal disease can help prevent occurrence or recurrence of CVD., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis.  Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis., Search Methods: An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin)., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications., Main Results: We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care.  We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies., Authors' Conclusions: Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence., Objectives: To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings., Search Methods: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial., Authors' Conclusions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Sample-size estimation is an important factor in designing a clinical trial. A recent study found that 65% of Cochrane systematic reviews had imprecise results., Objective: This study set out to review the whole body of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) randomised controlled trials systematically in order to identify the reporting of sample-size estimation., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive hand search of the Cochrane Library and Cochrane IBD Specialized Trials Register. We extracted information on relevant features and the results of the included studies. We produced descriptive statistics for our results., Results: A total of 242 randomised controlled trials were included from 44 Cochrane systematic reviews. About 25% of the studies failed to report on sample-size estimation. Of those that did report on sample-size estimation, 33% failed to recruit their target sample size., Conclusions: Around half of the randomised controlled trials in IBD either do not report sample-size estimation or reach their recruitment target with the level of detail in reporting being limited., (© 2020 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial., Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology., Main Results: We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)., Authors' Conclusions: Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology., Main Results: In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies., Authors' Conclusions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response., Objectives: The primary objective was to determine the efficacy of probiotics compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other intervention for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis. The secondary objective was to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of probiotics., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probiotics against placebo or any other intervention, in both adults and children, for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis were eligible for inclusion. Maintenance therapy had to be for a minimum of three months when remission has been established by any clinical, endoscopic,histological or radiological relapse as defined by study authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology., Main Results: In this review, we included 12 studies (1473 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Participants were mostly adults. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and a combination of probiotics and 5-ASA to 5-ASA. The studies ranged in length from 12 to 52 weeks. The average age of participants was between 32 and 51, with a range between 18 and 88 years. Seven studies investigated a single bacterial strain, and five studies considered mixed preparations of multiple strains. The risk of bias was high in all except three studies due to selective reporting, incomplete outcome data and lack of blinding. This resulted in low- to very low-certainty of evidence. It is uncertain if there is any difference in occurrence of clinical relapse when probiotics are compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.18; 4 studies, 361 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). It is also uncertain whether probiotics lead to a difference in the number of people who maintain clinical remission compared with placebo (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 2 studies, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imbalance in baseline characteristics and imprecision)). When probiotics are compared with 5-ASA, there may be little or no difference in clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22; 2 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maintenance of clinical remission (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; 1 study, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in clinical relapse when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87; 2 studies, 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision)). There may be little or no difference in maintenance of remission when probiotics, combined with 5-ASA, are compared with 5-ASA alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 1 study, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Where reported, most of the studies which compared probiotics with placebo recorded no serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. For the comparison of probiotics and 5-ASA, one trial reported 11/110 withdrawals due to adverse events with probiotics and 11/112 with 5-ASA (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.25; 222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Discontinuation of therapy was due to gastrointestinal symptoms. One study (24 participants) comparing probiotics combined with 5-ASA with 5-ASA alone, reported no withdrawals due to adverse events; and two studies reported two withdrawals in the probiotic arm, due to avascular necrosis of bilateral femoral head and pulmonary thromboembolism (RR 5.29, 95% CI 0.26 to 107.63; 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life and need for additional therapy were reported infrequently., Authors' Conclusions: The effectiveness of probiotics for the maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis remains unclear. This is due to low- to very low-certainty evidence from poorly conducted studies, which contribute limited amounts of data from a small number of participants. Future trials comparing probiotics with 5-ASA rather than placebo will better reflect conventional care given to people with ulcerative colitis. Appropriately powered studies with a minimum length of 12 months are needed., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: There may be an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the evidence so far has been uncertain about whether periodontal therapy can help prevent CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. This is the second update of a review originally published in 2014, and first updated in 2017. Although there is a new multidimensional staging and grading system for periodontitis, we have retained the label 'chronic periodontitis' in this version of the review since available studies are based on the previous classification system., Objectives: To investigate the effects of periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of CVD in people with chronic periodontitis., Search Methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, two trials registries, and the grey literature to September 2019. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP database, and Sciencepaper Online to August 2019., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared active periodontal therapy to no periodontal treatment or a different periodontal treatment. We included studies of participants with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, either with CVD (secondary prevention studies) or without CVD (primary prevention studies)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment independently and in duplicate. They resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or with a third review author. We adopted a formal pilot-tested data extraction form, and used the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We included two RCTs in the review. One study focused on the primary prevention of CVD, and the other addressed secondary prevention. We evaluated both as being at high risk of bias. Our primary outcomes of interest were death (all-cause and CVD-related) and all cardiovascular events, measured at one-year follow-up or longer. For primary prevention of CVD in participants with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, one study (165 participants) provided very low-certainty evidence. There was only one death in the study; we were unable to determine whether scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could reduce incidence of all-cause death (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 376.98), or all CVD-related death (Peto OR 7.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.98). We could not exclude the possibility that scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could increase cardiovascular events (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 1.07 to 56.1) compared with supragingival scaling measured at 12-month follow-up. For secondary prevention of CVD, one pilot study randomised 303 participants to receive scaling and root planning plus oral hygiene instruction (periodontal treatment) or oral hygiene instruction plus a copy of radiographs and recommendation to follow-up with a dentist (community care). As cardiovascular events had been measured for different time periods of between 6 and 25 months, and only 37 participants were available with at least one-year follow-up, we did not consider the data to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in this review. The study did not evaluate all-cause death and all CVD-related death. We are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of periodontal therapy on secondary prevention of CVD., Authors' Conclusions: For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people diagnosed with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, very low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of scaling and root planning plus antibiotics compared to supragingival scaling. There is no reliable evidence available regarding secondary prevention of CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and CVD. Further trials are needed to reach conclusions about whether treatment for periodontal disease can help prevent occurrence or recurrence of CVD., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic disease of the gut. About 75% of people with CD undergo surgery at least once in their lifetime to induce remission. However, as there is no known cure for the disease, patients usually experience a recurrence even after surgery. Different interventions are routinely used in maintaining postsurgical remission. There is currently no consensus on which treatment is the most effective., Objectives: To assess the effects and harms of interventions for the maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn's disease and rank the treatments in order of effectiveness., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 January 2019. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles, abstracts from major gastroenterology meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. There was no restriction on language, date, or publication status., Selection Criteria: We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different interventions used for maintaining surgically induced remission in people with CD who were in postsurgical remission. Participants had to have received maintenance treatment for at least three months. We excluded studies assessing enteral diet, diet manipulation, herbal medicine, and nutritional supplementation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by arbitration of a third review author when necessary. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian approach through Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation. For the pairwise comparisons carried out in Review Manager 5, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For the NMA, we presented hazard ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) and reported ranking probabilities for each intervention. For the NMA, we focused on three main outcomes: clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Data were insufficient to assess time to relapse and histologic relapse. Adverse events and serious adverse events were not sufficiently or objectively reported to permit an NMA. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) methods to evaluate our confidence in the findings within networks, and GRADE for entire networks., Main Results: We included 35 RCTs (3249 participants) in the review. The average age of study participants ranged between 33.6 and 38.8 years. Risk of bias was high in 18 studies, low in four studies, and unclear in 13 studies. Of the 35 included RCTs, 26 studies (2581 participants; 9 interventions) were considered eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The interventions studied included 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), adalimumab, antibiotics, budesonide, infliximab, probiotics, purine analogues, sulfasalazine, and a combination of sulfasalazine and prednisolone. This resulted in 30 direct contrasts, which informed 102 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the clinical relapse network (21 studies; 2245 participants) and endoscopic relapse (12 studies; 1128 participants) were of low certainty while the evidence for withdrawal due to adverse events (15 studies; 1498 participants) was of very low certainty. This assessment was due to high risk of bias in most of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision across networks. We mainly judged individual contrasts as of low or very low certainty, except 5-ASA versus placebo, the evidence for which was judged as of moderate certainty.We ranked the treatments based on effectiveness and the certainty of the evidence. For clinical relapse, the five most highly ranked treatments were adalimumab, infliximab, budesonide, 5-ASA, and purine analogues. We found some evidence that adalimumab (HR 0.11, 95% Crl 0.02 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence) and 5-ASA may reduce the probability of clinical relapse compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% Crl 0.53 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). However, budesonide may not be effective in preventing clinical relapse (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.27 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). We are less confident about the effectiveness of infliximab (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.02 to 1.74; very low-certainty evidence) and purine analogues (HR 0.75, 95% CrI 0.55 to 1.00; low-certainty evidence). It was unclear whether the other interventions reduced the probability of a clinical relapse, as the certainty of the evidence was very low.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing endoscopic relapse. Whilst there might be some evidence of prevention of endoscopic relapse with adalimumab (HR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.32; low-certainty evidence), no other intervention studied appeared to be effective.Due to high risk of bias and limited data across the network, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of interventions for preventing withdrawal due to adverse events. Withdrawal due to adverse events appeared to be least likely with sulfasalazine (HR 1.96, 95% Crl 0.00 to 8.90; very low-certainty evidence) and most likely with antibiotics (HR 53.92, 95% Crl 0.43 to 259.80; very low-certainty evidence). When considering the network as a whole, two adverse events leading to study withdrawal (i.e. pancreatitis and leukopenia) occurred in more than 1% of participants treated with an intervention. Pancreatitis occurred in 2.8% (11/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.17% (2/1210) of all other groups studied. Leukopenia occurred in 2.5% (10/399) of purine analogue participants compared to 0.08% (1/1210) of all other groups studied., Authors' Conclusions: Due to low-certainty evidence in the networks, we are unable to draw conclusions on which treatment is most effective for preventing clinical relapse and endoscopic relapse. Evidence on the safety of the interventions was inconclusive, however cases of pancreatitis and leukopenia from purine analogues were evident in the studies. Larger trials are needed to further understand the effect of the interventions on endoscopic relapse.

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition and maintenance of remission is a major issue as many patients fail to achieve remission with medical management and require surgical interventions. Purine analogues such as azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) have been used to maintain surgically-induced remission in CD, but the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of these agents remains controversial., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of purine analogues (AZA and 6-MP) for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD., Search Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 26 July 2018 (and from inception to 31 July 2019). In addition, we searched reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, conference proceedings and trials registers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of at least three months that enrolled adults and children with surgically-induced remission of CD and compared AZA or 6-MP to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention were considered for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic relapse, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawal due to AEs and health-related quality of life., Main Results: Ten RCTs with a total of 928 participants were included. Study participants were adults recruited from university clinics and gastroenterology hospitals who received interventions post-surgery for a duration between 12 to 36 months. Most study participants were recruited less than three months after surgery in all except one study where participants were recruited between 6 to 24 months post-surgery. One study was rated as low risk of bias, six studies were rated high risk of bias and three were rated unclear risk of bias.There was moderate certainty evidence that purine analogues are more efficient for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. At 12 to 36 months, 51% (109/215) of AZA/6-MP participants relapsed compared to 64% (124/193) of placebo participants (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; 408 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence regarding the efficacy of AZA or 6-MP for maintaining postoperative clinical remission compared to 5-ASA compounds was low. At 12 to 24 months , 64% (113/177) of purine analogue participants relapsed compared to 59% (101/170) of 5-ASA participants (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 347 participants; 4 studies; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence that purine analogues are inferior for preventing postsurgical clinical relapse compared to tumour necrosis factor alpha agents (anti-TNF-α) was very low. At 12 to 24 months, 43% (29/67) of AZA participants relapsed compared to 14% (10/72) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.50 to 5.57; 139 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence).The effect of purine analogues compounds on AEs compared to placebo or any active treatment was uncertain, as the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. After 12 to 24 months, 14% (12/87) of purine analogue participants experienced an AE compared to 10% (8/81) of placebo participants (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27; 168 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs compared to 5-ASA agents was uncertain. After 12 to 24 months, 41% (73/176) of purine analogue participants had an AE compared to 47% (81/171) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.07; 346 participants; 4 studies; I² = 15%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs in comparison to anti TNF-α agents was uncertain. At 12 to 24 months, 57% (32/56) of AZA participants had an AE compared to 51% (31/61) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.53; 117 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Purine analogue participants were more like than 5-ASA participants to have a SAE (RR 3.39, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.13, 311 participants; 3 studies; I² = 9%; very low certainty evidence), or to withdraw due to an AE (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.81; 425 participants; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs across all studies included leucopenia, arthralgia, abdominal pain or severe epigastric intolerance, elevated liver enzymes, nausea and vomiting, pancreatitis, anaemia, nasopharyngitis and flatulence., Authors' Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that AZA and 6-MP may be superior to placebo for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in participants with CD. There was no clear difference in the number of clinical relapses when purine analogues were compared with 5-ASA agents, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There was very low certainty evidence that AZA and 6-MP are more likely to result in more serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to an AE (low certainty) when compared to 5-ASA agents. Very low certainty evidence suggests that purine analogues may be inferior to anti-TNF-α agents, however, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Further research investigating the efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP in comparison to other active medications in surgically-induced remission of CD is warranted.

Background: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that can involve any part of the gastrointestinal tract. 5-Aminosalicylates (5-ASAs) are locally acting, anti-inflammatory compounds that reduce inflammation of the colonic mucosa with release profiles that vary among various commercially available formulations. This updated Cochrane review summarizes current evidence on the use of 5-ASA formulations for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA agents for the maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 16 July 2018. We also searched references, conference abstracts, and trials registers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with CD in remission following surgery and compared 5-ASAs to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention with duration of at least three months were considered for inclusion., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic recurrence, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events., Main Results: Fourteen RCTs (1867 participants) were included in the review. Participants (15 to 70 years) were recruited from gastroenterology hospitals and medical clinics in Europe and North America and followed up between 3 and 72 months. The risk of bias was assessed as 'low' in one study, 'unclear' in seven and as 'high' in six.At 12 months, 36% (20/55) of participants in the 5-ASA group experienced clinical relapse compared to 51% (28/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.10; low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence suggests that 5-ASAs are more effective for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. During a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months, 36% (131/361) of 5-ASA participants relapsed compared to 43% (160/369) of placebo participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). At 12 months, 17% (17/101) of the 4 g/day mesalamine group relapsed compared to 26% (27/105) of the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13; moderate certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in clinical relapse rates when 5-ASA compounds were compared to purine antimetabolites. At 24 months, 61% (103/170) of mesalamine participants relapsed compared to 67% (119/177) of azathioprine participants (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; I² = 28%; low certainty evidence). During 24 months, 50% (9/18) of 5-ASA participants had clinical relapse compared to 13% (2/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 4.0, 95% CI 1.01 to 15.84; low certainty evidence). The effects of sulphasalazine compared to placebo on clinical relapse rate is uncertain. After 18 to 36 months, 66% (95/143) of participants treated with sulphasalazine relapsed compared to 71% (110/155) in the placebo group (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; I² = 38%; low certainty evidence).The effect of 5-ASA drugs on safety was uncertain. During 24 months follow-up, 4% (2/55) of 5-ASA participants experienced adverse events compared to none (0/55) in the no treatment control group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.81; very low certainty evidence). An equal proportion of 5-ASA participants (10%; 23/241) and placebo (9%; 20/225) groups experienced an adverse event during a follow-up of 3 to 72 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in the 5-ASA and purine analogues groups. However, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in participants who received purine analogues than 5-ASA. At 52 weeks to 24 months, 52% (107/207) of 5-ASA participants had an adverse event compared to 47% (102/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Four per cent (6/152) of 5-ASA participants had a serious adverse event compared to 17% (27/159) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80; very low certainty evidence). Eight per cent (17/207) of 5-ASA participants withdrew due to an adverse event compared to 19% (42/218) of purine analogue participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83; low certainty evidence). Adverse event rates were similar in high and low dose mesalamine participants. After 12 months, 2% (2/101) of 4 g/day mesalamine participants had an adverse event compared to 2% (2/105) of 2.4 g/day participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.24; low certainty evidence). The proportion of participants who experienced adverse events over a 24 month follow-up in the mesalamine group was 78% (14/18) compared to 69% (11/16) of adalimumab participants (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence). None (0/32) of the sulphasalazine participants had an adverse event at 18 months follow-up compared to 3% (1/34) of the placebo group (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.38; very low certainty evidence). Commonly reported adverse events in the included studies were diarrhoea, nausea, increased liver function tests, pancreatitis, and abdominal pain., Authors' Conclusions: 5-ASA preparations are superior to placebo for the maintenance of surgically-induced clinical remission in patients with CD (moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to prevent one relapse was 13 patients. The evidence for endoscopic remission is uncertain. The sulphasalazine class of 5-ASA agents failed to demonstrate superiority against placebo, 5-ASAs failed to demonstrate superiority compared to no treatment (very low and low certainty). The efficacy of two different doses of the same 5-ASA and the efficacy of 5-ASA compared to purine antimetabolites (azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine) in maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD remains unclear. However, purine analogues lead to more serious adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events. There is a low certainty that 5-ASA is inferior for maintaining surgically-induced remission of CD compared to biologics (anti TNF-ɑ). 5-ASA formulations appear to be safe with no difference in the occurrence of adverse events or withdrawal when compared with placebo, no treatment or biologics.

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprised of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is characterized by chronic mucosal inflammation, frequent hospitalizations, adverse health economics, and compromised quality of life. Diet has been hypothesised to influence IBD activity., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dietary interventions on IBD outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to 31 January 2019. We also scanned reference lists of included studies, relevant reviews and guidelines., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of dietary manipulations to other diets in participants with IBD. Studies that exclusively focused on enteral nutrition, oral nutrient supplementation, medical foods, probiotics, and parenteral nutrition were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data and assessed bias using the risk of bias tool. We conducted meta-analyses where possible using a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE., Main Results: The review included 18 RCTs with 1878 participants. The studies assessed different dietary interventions for active CD (six studies), inactive CD (seven studies), active UC (one study) and inactive UC (four studies). Dietary interventions involved either the consumption of low amounts or complete exclusion of one or more food groups known to trigger IBD symptoms. There was limited scope for data pooling as the interventions and control diets were diverse. The studies were mostly inadequately powered. Fourteen studies were rated as high risk of bias. The other studies were rated as unclear risk of bias.The effect of high fiber, low refined carbohydrates, low microparticle diet, low calcium diet, symptoms-guided diet and highly restricted organic diet on clinical remission in active CD is uncertain. At 4 weeks, remission was induced in: 100% (4/4) of participants in the low refined carbohydrates diet group compared to 0% (0/3) of participants in the control group (RR 7.20, 95% CI 0.53 to 97.83; 7 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 16 weeks, 44% (23/52) of participants in the low microparticle diet achieved clinical remission compared to 25% (13/51) of control-group participants (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.22 to 43.84; 103 participants; 2 studies; I² = 73%; very low certainty evidence). Fifty per cent (16/32) of participants in the symptoms-guided diet group achieved clinical remission compared to 0% (0/19) of control group participants (RR 20.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 315.40; 51 participants ; 1 study; very low certainty evidence) (follow-up unclear). At 24 weeks, 50% (4/8) of participants in the highly restricted organic diet achieved clinical remission compared to 50% (5/10) of participants in the control group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.53; 18 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 16 weeks, 37% (16/43) participants following a low calcium diet achieved clinical remission compared to 30% (12/40) in the control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.29; 83 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of low refined carbohydrate diets, symptoms-guided diets and low red processed meat diets on relapse in inactive CD is uncertain. At 12 to 24 months, 67% (176/264) of participants in low refined carbohydrate diet relapsed compared to 64% (193/303) in the control group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; 567 participants; 3 studies; I² = 35%; low certainty evidence). At 6 to 24 months, 48% (24/50) of participants in the symptoms-guided diet group relapsed compared to 83% (40/48) participants in the control diet (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.01; 98 participants ; 2 studies; I² = 54%; low certainty evidence). At 48 weeks, 66% (63/96) of participants in the low red and processed meat diet group relapsed compared to 63% (75/118) of the control group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 214 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). At 12 months, 0% (0/16) of participants on an exclusion diet comprised of low disaccharides / grains / saturated fats / red and processed meat experienced clinical relapse compared to 26% (10/38) of participants on a control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.76; 54 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of a symptoms-guided diet on clinical remission in active UC is uncertain. At six weeks, 36% (4/11) of symptoms-guided diet participants achieved remission compared to 0% (0/10) of usual diet participants (RR 8.25, 95% CI 0.50 to 136.33; 21 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence).The effect of the Alberta-based anti-inflammatory diet, the Carrageenan-free diet or milk-free diet on relapse rates in inactive UC is uncertain. At 6 months, 36% (5/14) of participants in the Alberta-based anti-inflammatory diet group relapsed compared to 29% (4/14) of participants in the control group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.70; 28 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). Thirty per cent (3/10) of participants following the carrageenan-free diet for 12 months relapsed compared to 60% (3/5) of the participants in the control group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 15 participants; 1 study; very low certainty evidence). At 12 months, 59% (23/39) of milk free diet participants relapsed compared to 68% (26/38) of control diet participants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15; 77 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence).None of the included studies reported on diet-related adverse events., Authors' Conclusions: The effects of dietary interventions on CD and UC are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of dietary interventions in CD and UC can be drawn. There is need for consensus on the composition of dietary interventions in IBD and more RCTs are required to evaluate these interventions. Currently, there are at least five ongoing studies (estimated enrollment of 498 participants). This review will be updated when the results of these studies are available.

Background: Wrist fractures, involving the distal radius, are the most common fractures in children. Most are buckle fractures, which are stable fractures, unlike greenstick and other usually displaced fractures. There is considerable variation in practice, such as the extent of immobilisation for buckle fractures and use of surgery for seriously displaced fractures., Objectives: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions for common distal radius fractures in children, including skeletally immature adolescents., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and reference lists to May 2018., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing interventions for treating distal radius fractures in children. We sought data on physical function, treatment failure, adverse events, time to return to normal activities (recovery time), wrist pain, and child (and parent) satisfaction., Data Collection and Analysis: At least two review authors independently performed study screening and selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the quality of evidence for each outcome., Main Results: Of the 30 included studies, 21 were RCTs, seven were quasi-RCTs and two did not describe their randomisation method. Overall, 2930 children were recruited. Typically, trials included more male children and reported mean ages between 8 and 10 years. Eight studies recruited buckle fractures, five recruited buckle and other stable fractures, three recruited minimally displaced fractures and 14 recruited displaced fractures, typically requiring closed reduction, typically requiring closed reduction. All studies were at high risk of bias, mainly reflecting lack of blinding. The studies made 14 comparisons. Below we consider five prespecified comparisons:Removable splint versus below-elbow cast for predominantly buckle fractures (6 studies, 695 children)One study (66 children) reported similar Modified Activities Scale for Kids - Performance scores (0 to 100; no disability) at four weeks (median scores: splint 99.04; cast 99.11); low-quality evidence. Thirteen children needed a change or reapplication of device (splint 5/225; cast 8/219; 4 studies); very low-quality evidence. One study (87 children) reported no refractures at six months. One study (50 children) found no between-group difference in pain during treatment; very low-quality evidence. Evidence was absent (recovery time), insufficient (children with minor complications) or contradictory (child or parent satisfaction). Two studies estimated lower healthcare costs for removable splints.Soft or elasticated bandage versus below-elbow cast for buckle or similar fractures (4 studies, 273 children)One study (53 children) reported more children had no or only limited disability at four weeks in the bandage group; very low-quality evidence. Eight children changed device or extended immobilisation for delayed union (bandage 5/90; cast 3/91; 3 studies); very low-quality evidence. Two studies (139 children) reported no serious adverse events at four weeks. Evidence was absent, insufficient or contradictory for recovery time, wrist pain, children with minor complications, and child and parent satisfaction. More bandage-group participants found their treatment convenient (39 children).Removal of casts at home by parents versus at the hospital fracture clinic by clinicians (2 studies, 404 children, mainly buckle fractures)One study (233 children) found full restoration of physical function at four weeks; low-quality evidence. There were five treatment changes (home 4/197; hospital 1/200; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). One study found no serious adverse effects at six months (288 children). Recovery time and number of children with minor complications were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in pain at four weeks (233 children); low-quality evidence. One study (80 children) found greater parental satisfaction in the home group; low-quality evidence. One UK study found lower healthcare costs for home removal.Below-elbow versus above-elbow casts for displaced or unstable both-bone fractures (4 studies, 399 children)Short-term physical function data were unavailable but very low-quality evidence indicated less dependency when using below-elbow casts. One study (66 children with minimally displaced both-bone fractures) found little difference in ABILHAND-Kids scores (0 to 42; no problems) (mean scores: below-elbow 40.7; above-elbow 41.8); very low-quality evidence. Overall treatment failure data are unavailable, but nine of the 11 remanipulations or secondary reductions (366 children, 4 studies) were in the above-elbow group; very low-quality evidence. There was no refracture or compartment syndrome at six months (215 children; 2 studies). Recovery time and overall numbers of children with minor complications were not reported. There was little difference in requiring physiotherapy for stiffness (179 children, 2 studies); very low-quality evidence. One study (85 children) found less pain at one week for below-elbow casts; low-quality evidence. One study found treatment with an above-elbow cast cost three times more in Nepal.Surgical fixation with percutaneous wiring and cast immobilisation versus cast immobilisation alone after closed reduction of displaced fractures (5 studies, 323 children)Where reported, above-elbow casts were used. Short-term functional outcome data were unavailable. One study (123 children) reported similar ABILHAND-Kids scores indicating normal physical function at six months (mean scores: surgery 41.9; cast only 41.4); low-quality evidence. There were fewer treatment failures, defined as early or problematic removal of wires or remanipulation for early loss in position, after surgery (surgery 20/124; cast only 41/129; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, there were fewer serious advents after surgery (surgery 28/124; cast only 43/129; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence). Recovery time, wrist pain, and satisfaction were not reported. There was lower referral for physiotherapy for stiffness after surgery (1 study); very low-quality evidence. One USA study found similar treatment costs in both groups., Authors' Conclusions: Where available, the quality of the RCT-based evidence on interventions for treating wrist fractures in children is low or very low. However, there is reassuring evidence of a full return to previous function with no serious adverse events, including refracture, for correctly-diagnosed buckle fractures, whatever the treatment used. The review findings are consistent with the move away from cast immobilisation for these injuries. High-quality evidence is needed to address key treatment uncertainties; notably, some priority topics are already being tested in ongoing multicentre trials, such as FORCE.

Background: Traumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds., Objectives: To assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting., Search Methods: In June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting., Selection Criteria: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone)., Main Results: Seven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.Open fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)One study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.We pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I 2 = 56%); very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Data from one study shows that there is probably no clear difference in health-related quality of life between participants treated with NPWT 125 mmHg and those treated with standard wound care (EQ-5D utility scores mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 364 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; physical component summary score of the short-form 12 instrument MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.08 to 3.08; 329 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision).Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (460 participants) suggests that NPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for open fractures in the UK. On average, NPWT was more costly and conferred few additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was GBP 267,910 and NPWT was shown to be unlikely to be cost effective at a range of cost-per-QALYs thresholds. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision.Other open traumatic wounds (two studies, one comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care and a three-arm study comparing NPWT 125 mmHg, NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care)Pooled data from two studies (509 participants) suggests no clear difference in risk of wound infection between open traumatic wounds treated with NPWT at 125 mmHg or standard care (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.One trial with 463 participants compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and with NPWT at 125 mmHg. Data on wound infection were reported for each comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.10; 463 participants) and uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and 125 mmHg (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.51; 251 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound.

Background: There is an association between chronic periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not known whether periodontal therapy could prevent or manage CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of periodontal therapy in preventing the occurrence of, and management or recurrence of, CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis., Search Methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 31 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 August 2017) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL EBSCO) (1937 to 31 August 2017) . The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Open Grey were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to 27 August 2017), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 27 August 2017), the VIP database (1989 to 27 August 2017) and Sciencepaper Online (2003 to 27 August 2017)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered eligible. Studies were selected if they included patients with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis and previous CVD (secondary prevention studies) or no CVD (primary prevention studies); patients in the intervention group received active periodontal therapy compared to maintenance therapy, no periodontal treatment or another kind of periodontal treatment in the control group., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by discussion or with a third review author. A formal pilot-tested data extraction form was adopted for the data extraction, and the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment was used for the critical appraisal of the literature., Main Results: No studies were identified that assessed primary prevention of CVD in people with periodontitis. One study involving 303 participants with ≥ 50% blockage of one coronary artery or a coronary event within three years, but not the three months prior, was included. The study was at high risk of bias due to deviation from the protocol treatment allocation and lack of follow-up data. The trial compared scaling and root planing (SRP) with community care for a follow-up period of six to 25 months. No data on deaths (all-cause or CVD-related) were reported. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of SRP and community care in reducing the risk of CVD recurrence in patients with chronic periodontitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 2.22; very low quality evidence). The effects of SRP compared with community care on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.62; -1.45 to 2.69), the number of patients with high hs-CRP (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.85) and adverse events (RR 9.06; 95% CI 0.49 to 166.82) were also not statistically significant. The study did not assess modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, other blood test results, heart function parameters or revascularisation procedures., Authors' Conclusions: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to support or refute whether periodontal therapy can prevent the recurrence of CVD in the long term in patients with chronic periodontitis. No evidence on primary prevention was found.

Background: Scalpels or electrosurgery can be used to make abdominal incisions. The potential benefits of electrosurgery may include reduced blood loss, dry and rapid separation of tissue, and reduced risk of cutting injury to surgeons. Postsurgery risks possibly associated with electrosurgery may include poor wound healing and complications such as surgical site infection., Objectives: To assess the effects of electrosurgery compared with scalpel for major abdominal incisions., Search Methods: The first version of this review included studies published up to February 2012. In October 2016, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and the registry for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov). We did not apply date or language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Studies considered in this analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared electrosurgery to scalpel for creating abdominal incisions during major open abdominal surgery. Incisions could be any orientation (vertical, oblique, or transverse) and surgical setting (elective or emergency). Electrosurgical incisions were made through major layers of the abdominal wall, including subcutaneous tissue and the musculoaponeurosis (a sheet of connective tissue that attaches muscles), regardless of the technique used to incise the skin and peritoneum. Scalpel incisions were made through major layers of abdominal wall including skin, subcutaneous tissue, and musculoaponeurosis, regardless of the technique used to incise the abdominal peritoneum. Primary outcomes analysed were wound infection, time to wound healing, and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, wound incision time, wound-related blood loss, and adhesion or scar formation., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. When necessary, we contacted trial authors for missing data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data., Main Results: The updated search found seven additional RCTs making a total of 16 included studies (2769 participants). All studies compared electrosurgery to scalpel and were considered in one comparison. Eleven studies, analysing 2178 participants, reported on wound infection. There was no clear difference in wound infections between electrosurgery and scalpel (7.7% for electrosurgery versus 7.4% for scalpel; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and serious imprecision). None of the included studies reported time to wound healing.It is uncertain whether electrosurgery decreases wound dehiscence compared to scalpel (2.7% for electrosurgery versus 2.4% for scalpel; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.50; 1064 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in incision time between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -45.74 seconds, 95% CI -88.41 to -3.07; 325 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). There was no clear difference in incision time per wound area between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -0.58 seconds/cm 2 , 95% CI -1.26 to 0.09; 282 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence downgraded for very serious imprecision).There was no clinically important difference in mean blood loss between electrosurgery and scalpel (MD -20.10 mL, 95% CI -28.16 to -12.05; 241 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded for serious imprecision). Two studies reported on mean wound-related blood loss per wound area; however, we were unable to pool the studies due to considerable heterogeneity. It was uncertain whether electrosurgery decreased wound-related blood loss per wound area. We could not reach a conclusion on the effects of the two interventions on pain and appearance of scars for various reasons such as small number of studies, insufficient data, the presence of conflicting data, and different measurement methods., Authors' Conclusions: The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low due to risk of bias and imprecise results. Low-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in wound infection between the scalpel and electrosurgery. There is a need for more research to determine the relative effectiveness of scalpel compared with electrosurgery for major abdominal incisions.

Background: Periodontal disease has been linked with a number of conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes, all likely through systemic inflammatory pathways. It is common in women of reproductive age and gum conditions tend to worsen during pregnancy. Some evidence from observational studies suggests that periodontal intervention may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is need for a comprehensive Cochrane review of randomised trials to assess the effect of periodontal treatment on perinatal and maternal health., Objectives: To assess the effects of treating periodontal disease in pregnant women in order to prevent or reduce perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality., Search Methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (to 7 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 6 October 2016). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 6 October 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of periodontal treatment in preventing or reducing perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. We excluded studies where obstetric outcomes were not reported., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data using a prepiloted data extraction form. Missing data were obtained by contacting authors and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled and expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) . The random-effects model was used for pooling except where there was an insufficient number of studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE., Main Results: There were 15 RCTs (n = 7161 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria. All the included studies were at high risk of bias mostly due to lack of blinding and imbalance in baseline characteristics of participants. The studies recruited pregnant women from prenatal care facilities who had periodontitis (14 studies) or gingivitis (1 study).The two main comparisons were: periodontal treatment versus no treatment during pregnancy and periodontal treatment versus alternative periodontal treatment. The head-to-head comparison between periodontal treatments assessed a more intensive treatment versus a less intensive one.Eleven studies compared periodontal treatment with no treatment during pregnancy. The meta-analysis shows no clear difference in preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10; 5671 participants; 11 studies; low-quality evidence) between periodontal treatment and no treatment. There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight < 2500 g (9.70% with periodontal treatment versus 12.60% without treatment; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 3470 participants; 7 studies).It is unclear whether periodontal treatment leads to a difference in preterm birth < 35 weeks (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.76; 2557 participants; 2 studies; ) and < 32 weeks (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32; 2755 participants; 3 studies), low birth weight < 1500 g (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70; 2550 participants; 2 studies), perinatal mortality (including fetal and neonatal deaths up to the first 28 days after birth) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; 5320 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 2946 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference in small for gestational age (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 3610 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) when periodontal treatment is compared with no treatment.Four studies compared periodontal treatment with alternative periodontal treatment. Data pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. The outcomes reported were preterm birth < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality (very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether there is a difference in < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality when different periodontal treatments are compared because the quality of evidence is very low.Maternal mortality and adverse effects of the intervention did not occur in any of the studies that reported on either of the outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: It is not clear if periodontal treatment during pregnancy has an impact on preterm birth (low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight (< 2500 g), however, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. There is insufficient evidence to determine which periodontal treatment is better in preventing adverse obstetric outcomes. Future research should aim to report periodontal outcomes alongside obstetric outcomes.

Background: Surgical site infection rates in the month following surgery vary from 1% to 5%. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Nasal decontamination using antibiotics or antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by preventing organisms from the nasal cavity being transferred to the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) colonises the nasal cavity and skin of carriers and can cause infection in open or unhealed surgical wounds. S aureus is the leading nosocomial (hospital-acquired) pathogen in hospitals worldwide. The potential effectiveness of nasal decontamination of S aureus is thought to be dependent on both the antibiotic/antiseptic used and the dose of application; however, it is unclear whether nasal decontamination actually reduces postoperative wound infection in S aureus carriers., Objectives: To assess the effects of nasal decontamination on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in people who are S aureus carriers undergoing surgery., Search Methods: In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trial registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which enrolled S aureus carriers with any type of surgery and assessed the use of nasal decontamination with antiseptic/antibiotic properties were included in the review., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment., Main Results: We located two studies (291 participants) for inclusion in this review. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and nasal decontamination regimens. One study compared mupirocin (2% contained in a base of polyethylene glycol 400 and polyethylene glycol 3350) with a placebo in elective cardiac surgery patients; and one study compared Anerdian (iodine 0.45% to 0.57% (W/V), chlorhexidine acetate 0.09% to 0.11% (W/V)) with no treatment also in cardiac surgery patients. The trials reported limited outcome data on SSI, adverse events and secondary outcomes (e.g. S aureus SSI, mortality). Mupirocin compared with placeboThis study found no clear difference in SSI risk following use of mupirocin compared with placebo (1 trial, 257 participants); risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.25 based on 18/130 events in the mupirocin group and 11/127 in the control group; low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision). Anerdian compared with no treatmentIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in SSI risk following treatment with Anerdian compared with no treatment (1 trial, 34 participants); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08 based on 1/18 events in the Anerdian group and 1/16 in the control group; very low certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision and once due to risk of bias)., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of nasal decontamination in the prevention of SSI. This limitation is specific to the focused question our review addresses, looking at nasal decontamination as a single intervention in participants undergoing surgery who are known S aureus carriers. We were only able to identify two studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and one of these was very small and poorly reported. The potential benefits and harms of using decontamination for the prevention of SSI in this group of people remain uncertain.

Background: A perianal abscess is a collection of pus under the skin, around the anus. It usually occurs due to an infection of an anal gland. In the UK, the annual incidence is 40 per 100,000 of the adult population, and the standard treatment is admission to hospital for incision and drainage under general anaesthetic. Following drainage of the pus, an internal dressing (pack) is placed into the cavity to stop bleeding. Common practice is for community nursing teams to change the pack regularly until the cavity heals. Some practitioners in the USA and Australia make a small stab incision under local anaesthetic and place a catheter into the cavity which drains into an external dressing. It is removed when it stops draining. Elsewhere in the USA, simple drainage is performed in an outpatient setting under local anaesthetic., Objectives: To assess the effects of internal dressings in healing wound cavities resulting from drainage of perianal abscesses., Search Methods: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries to identify ongoing and unpublished studies, and searched reference lists of relevant reports to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting., Selection Criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of internal dressing (packing) used in the post-operative management of perianal abscess cavities with alternative treatments or different types of internal dressing., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction., Main Results: We included two studies, with a total of 64 randomised participants (50 and 14 participants) aged 18 years or over, with a perianal abscess. In both studies, participants were enrolled on the first post-operative day and randomised to continued packing by community district nursing teams or to no packing. Participants in the non-packing group managed their own wounds in the community and used absorbant dressings to cover the area. Fortnightly follow-up was undertaken until the cavity closed and the skin re-epithelialised, which constituted healing. For non-attenders, telephone follow-up was conducted.Both studies were at high risk of bias due to risk of attrition, performance and detection bias.It was not possible to pool the two studies for the outcome of time to healing. It is unclear whether continued post-operative packing of the cavity of perianal abscesses affects time to complete healing. One study reported a mean time to wound healing of 26.8 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.7 to 30.7) in the packing group and 19.5 days (95% CI 13.6 to 25.4) in the non-packing group (it was not clear if all participants healed). We re-analysed the data and found no clear difference in the time to healing (7.30 days longer in the packing group, 95% CI -2.24 to 16.84; 14 participants). This was assessed as very low quality evidence (downgraded three levels for very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias). The second study reported a median time to complete wound healing of 24.5 days (range 10 to 150 days) in the packing group and 21 days (range 8 to 90 days) in the non-packed group. There was insufficient information to be able to recreate the analysis and the original analysis was inappropriate (did not account for censoring). This second study also provided very low quality evidence (downgraded four levels for serious risk of bias, serious indirectness and very serious imprecision).There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision) of no difference in wound pain scores at the initial dressing change. Both studies also reported patients' retrospective judgement of wound pain over the preceding two weeks (visual analogue scale, VAS) as lower for the non-packed group (2; both studies) compared with the packed group (0; both studies); (very low quality evidence) but we have been unable to reproduce these analyses as no variance data were published.There was no clear evidence of a difference in the number of post-operative fistulae detected between the packed and non-packed groups (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% CIs 0.56 to 9.45, I(2) = 0%) (very low quality evidence downgraded three levels for very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias).There was no clear evidence of a difference in the number of abscess recurrences between the packed and non-packed groups over the variable follow-up periods (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.37, I(2) = 0%) (very low quality evidence downgraded three levels for serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).No study reported participant health-related quality of life/health status, incontinence rates, time to return to work or normal function, resource use in terms of number of dressing changes or visits to a nurse, or change in wound size., Authors' Conclusions: It is unclear whether using internal dressings (packing) for the healing of perianal abscess cavities influences time to healing, wound pain, development of fistulae, abscess recurrence or other outcomes. Despite this absence of evidence, the practice of packing abscess cavities is commonplace. Given the lack of high quality evidence, decisions to pack may be based on local practices or patient preferences. Further clinical research is needed to assess the effects and patient experience of packing.

Background: Glycaemic control is a key issue in the care of people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Periodontal disease is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontal disease. This review updates the previous version published in 2010., Objectives: The objective is to investigate the effect of periodontal therapy on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 31 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 31 December 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 31 December 2014), and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 31 December 2014). ZETOC (1993 to 31 December 2014) and Web of Knowledge (1990 to 31 December 2014) were searched for conference proceedings. Additionally, two periodontology journals were handsearched for completeness, Annals of Periodontology (1996 to 2003) and Periodontology 2000 (1993 to 2003). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 DM (T1DM/T2DM) with a diagnosis of periodontitis. Interventions included periodontal treatments such as mechanical debridement, surgical treatment and antimicrobial therapy. Two broad comparisons were proposed:1. periodontal therapy versus no active intervention/usual care;2. periodontal therapy versus alternative periodontal therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: For this review update, at least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials and assessed included trials for risk of bias.Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c).Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI) and probing pocket depth (PPD)), cost implications and diabetic complications., Main Results: We included 35 studies (including seven from the previous version of the review), which included 2565 participants in total. All studies used a parallel RCT design, and 33 studies (94%) only targeted T2DM patients. There was variation between studies with regards to included age groups (ages 18 to 80), duration of follow-up (3 to 12 months), use of antidiabetic therapy, and included participants' baseline HbA1c levels (from 5.5% to 13.1%).We assessed 29 studies (83%) as being at high risk of bias, two studies (6%) as being at low risk of bias, and four studies (11%) as unclear. Thirty-four of the studies provided data suitable for analysis under one or both of the two comparisons.Comparison 1: low quality evidence from 14 studies (1499 participants) comparing periodontal therapy with no active intervention/usual care demonstrated that mean HbA1c was 0.29% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48% to 0.10% lower) 3 to 4 months post-treatment, and 0.02% lower after 6 months (five studies, 826 participants; 95% CI 0.20% lower to 0.16% higher).Comparison 2: 21 studies (920 participants) compared different periodontal therapies with each other. There was only very low quality evidence for the multiple head-to-head comparisons, the majority of which were unsuitable to be pooled, and provided no clear evidence of a benefit for one periodontal intervention over another. We were able to pool the specific comparison between scaling and root planing (SRP) plus antimicrobial versus SRP and there was no consistent evidence that the addition of antimicrobials to SRP was of any benefit to delivering SRP alone (mean HbA1c 0.00% lower: 12 studies, 450 participants; 95% CI 0.22% lower to 0.22% higher) at 3-4 months post-treatment, or after 6 months (mean HbA1c 0.04% lower: five studies, 206 patients; 95% CI 0.41% lower to 0.32% higher).Less than half of the studies measured adverse effects. The evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any of the treatments were associated with harm. No other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were measured by the included studies, and neither were cost implications or diabetic complications.Studies showed varying degrees of success with regards to achieving periodontal health, with some showing high levels of residual inflammation following treatment. Statistically significant improvements were shown for all periodontal indices (BOP, CAL, GI, PI and PPD) at 3-4 and 6 months in comparison 1; however, this was less clear for individual comparisons within the broad category of comparison 2., Authors' Conclusions: There is low quality evidence that the treatment of periodontal disease by SRP does improve glycaemic control in people with diabetes, with a mean percentage reduction in HbA1c of 0.29% at 3-4 months; however, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is maintained after 4 months.There was no evidence to support that one periodontal therapy was more effective than another in improving glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.In clinical practice, ongoing professional periodontal treatment will be required to maintain clinical improvements beyond 6 months. Further research is required to determine whether adjunctive drug therapies should be used with periodontal treatment. Future RCTs should evaluate this, provide longer follow-up periods, and consider the inclusion of a third 'no treatment' control arm.Larger, well conducted and clearly reported studies are needed in order to understand the potential of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control among people with diabetes mellitus. In addition, it will be important in future studies that the intervention is effective in reducing periodontal inflammation and maintaining it at lowered levels throughout the period of observation.

Background: Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation was initiated in the USA in 1945 and is currently practised in about 25 countries around the world; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. Given the continued interest in this topic from health professionals, policy makers and the public, it is important to update and maintain a systematic review that reflects contemporary evidence., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries.To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 February 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2015); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 February 2015); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 February 2015); Proquest (to 19 February 2015); Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 February 2015); ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 19 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization's WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language of publication or publication status in the searches of the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: For caries data, we included only prospective studies with a concurrent control that compared at least two populations - one receiving fluoridated water and the other non-fluoridated water - with outcome(s) evaluated at at least two points in time. For the assessment of fluorosis, we included any type of study design, with concurrent control, that compared populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. We included populations of all ages that received fluoridated water (naturally or artificially fluoridated) or non-fluoridated water., Data Collection and Analysis: We used an adaptation of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies.We included the following caries indices in the analyses: decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft (deciduous dentition) and DMFT (permanent dentition)), and proportion caries free in both dentitions. For dmft and DMFT analyses we calculated the difference in mean change scores between the fluoridated and control groups. For the proportion caries free we calculated the difference in the proportion caries free between the fluoridated and control groups.For fluorosis data we calculated the log odds and presented them as probabilities for interpretation., Main Results: A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste.There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation., Authors' Conclusions: There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.

Background: Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit. , Objectives: The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary., Selection Criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out., Main Results: We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59)., Authors' Conclusions: This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.

Background: There is an association between chronic periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not known whether periodontal therapy could prevent or manage CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of periodontal therapy in preventing the occurrence of, and management or recurrence of, CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis., Search Methods: The electronic databases that were searched were the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 April 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 April 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 April 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 7 April 2014), OpenGrey (to 7 April 2014), the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to April 2014), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to April 2014) and the VIP database (1989 to April 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Sciencepaper Online for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered eligible. Studies were selected if they included patients with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis and previous CVD (secondary prevention studies) or no CVD (primary prevention studies); patients in the intervention group received active periodontal therapy compared to maintenance therapy, no periodontal treatment or another kind of periodontal treatment in the control group., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by discussion or with a third review author. A formal pilot-tested data extraction form was adopted for the data extraction, and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment was used for the critical appraisal of the literature., Main Results: No studies were identified that assessed primary prevention of CVD in people with periodontitis. One study involving 303 participants with ≥ 50% blockage of one coronary artery or a coronary event within three years, but not the three months prior, was included. The study was at high risk of bias due to deviation from the protocol treatment allocation and lack of follow-up data. The trial compared scaling and root planing (SRP) with community care for a follow-up period of six to 25 months. No data on deaths (all-cause or CVD-related) were reported. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of SRP and community care in reducing the risk of CVD recurrence in patients with chronic periodontitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 2.22; very low quality evidence). The effects of SRP compared with community care on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.62; -1.45 to 2.69), the number of patients with high hs-CRP (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.85) and adverse events (RR 9.06; 95% CI 0.49 to 166.82) were also not statistically significant. The study did not assess modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, other blood test results, heart function parameters or revascularisation procedures., Authors' Conclusions: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to support or refute whether periodontal therapy can prevent the recurrence of CVD in the long term in patients with chronic periodontitis. No evidence on primary prevention was found.

Background: Amalgam has been the traditional material for filling cavities in posterior teeth for the last 150 years and, due to its effectiveness and cost, amalgam is still the restorative material of choice in certain parts of the world. In recent times, however, there have been concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings), relating to the mercury release in the body and the environmental impact following its disposal. Resin composites have become an esthetic alternative to amalgam restorations and there has been a remarkable improvement of its mechanical properties to restore posterior teeth.There is need to review new evidence comparing the effectiveness of both restorations., Objectives: To examine the effects of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth, primarily on restoration failure., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 October 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 October 2013), and LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 22 October 2013). We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We contacted manufacturers of dental materials to obtain any unpublished studies., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing dental resin composites with dental amalgams in permanent posterior teeth. We excluded studies having a follow-up period of less than three years., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: Of the 2205 retrieved references, we included seven trials (10 articles) in the systematic review. Two trials were parallel group studies involving 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations (921 children) in the analysis. The other five trials were split-mouth studies involving 1620 composite restorations and 570 amalgam restorations in an unclear number of children. Due to major problems with the reporting of the data for the five split-mouth trials, the primary analysis is based on the two parallel group trials. We judged all seven trials to be at high risk of bias and we analyzed 3265 composite restorations and 1935 amalgam restorations.The parallel group trials indicated that resin restorations had a significantly higher risk of failure than amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35, P value < 0.001 (fixed-effect model) (low-quality evidence)) and increased risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74, P value < 0.001 (low-quality evidence)) but no evidence of an increased risk of restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64, P value = 0.66 (moderate-quality evidence)). The results from the split-mouth trials were consistent with those of the parallel group trials.Adverse effects of dental restorations were reported in two trials. The outcomes considered were neurobehavioral function, renal function, psychosocial function, and physical development. The investigators found no difference in adverse effects between composite and amalgam restorations. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as none of the outcomes were reported in more than one trial., Authors' Conclusions: There is low-quality evidence to suggest that resin composites lead to higher failure rates and risk of secondary caries than amalgam restorations. This review reinforces the benefit of amalgam restorations and the results are particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Though the review found insufficient evidence to support or refute any adverse effects amalgam may have on patients, new research is unlikely to change opinion on its safety and due to the decision for a global phase-down of amalgam (Minamata Convention on Mercury) general opinion on its safety is unlikely to change.