Search

Background Interpretations of being a paramedic are normally unspoken in the literature and easily overlooked in the busyness of everyday work. The premise of this study was to explicate historical and cultural archetypes of the paramedic from within relevant literature. Methods A hermeneutic review was conducted to explore meanings associated with being a paramedic. This was a novel approach to exploring meanings of being and provided a rich depiction of the cultural and historical nuances inherent in paramedic work. Results Six paramedic archetypes were identified and related broadly to the principles of service, care and stoicism. These archetypes provided glimpses of how the paramedic is theorised both within and external to the profession, as well as gaps related to how the phenomenon of being a paramedic is experienced amid everyday practice situations. Conclusion Historical archetypes of the paramedic need to be recognised by paramedics as important in shaping the inherited cultural meanings of the work they do. However, due to the limited ability of fixed archetypes to capture the dynamic meanings of being a paramedic further research is required to understand how paramedics experience their caring work as meaningful across diverse contexts.

IntroductionPoor oral health among older people is a global problem impacting on health and well-being. The economic cost to the health system is significant. An ageing population is intensifying the urgency for action. However, poor oral health, particularly for those in residential aged care facilities, continues to be highly resistant to resolution. The overall aims of this realist review are to: (A) explore and synthesise evidence on oral health interventions for older people in residential aged care facilities, (B) produce a causal theory on how contextual factors and mechanisms interact to produce outcomes, and (C) produce guidelines/policies to inform high-quality oral health interventions to improve older people’s oral health in residential aged care facilities.Methods and analysisThe review is guided by the RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis. Participants include older people in residential aged care facilities, the aged care workforce, carers and families. Interventions include oral healthcare, oral health education, policy interventions and oral health promotion. The five-step realist review process of Pawson et al will guide the review: clarification of scope and development of initial framework, systematic searches, study appraisal and data extraction, synthesising evidence, drawing conclusions, and dissemination, implementation and evaluation. Expert input with key stakeholders will occur through a blog. Stakeholders will examine consistencies across studies and an explanatory causal theory will be developed to guide policy and practice.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval was granted by the La Trobe University Ethics Committee HREC 20144. The developed theory will guide education, practice and policy decisions about interventions and the factors that impact on implementation. Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, traditional research outputs such as international conference presentations and publications will be supplemented with stakeholder forums, infographics, blogs, social media postings, webinars, podcasts and writing for web-based independent outlets.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021155658.

This article discusses the role that storytelling plays in understanding both the personal and professional self from the perspective of a paramedic. The practice of paramedicine provides individuals with a strong platform upon which storytelling can be built, with narration of work-related stories presenting opportunities for reflection on the interplay between organisational culture and self-identity. Using elements of narrative inquiry, autoethnography and critical reflection, a paramedic story is deconstructed and examined from a number of perspectives. From this narrative exploration, three distinct themes emerged and are subsequently discussed: assumptions and preconceptions, fears and insecurities, and distancing and control. The findings illustrate the benefits of exploring paramedic stories in order to recognise, transform or eliminate unhelpful assumptions relating to paramedic practice, and discover unexplored aspects of the self through analysis of story.

Background Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. Search methods Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Dissertation Abstracts, SIGLE, the World Wide Web (Google) and the Community of Science Database were conducted for relevant trials and references up to 4th August 2011. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. There were no language restrictions. Trials pre-1966 were not searched. Selection criteria Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. Crossover trials were excluded. Data collection and analysis Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed. Main results Thirty-six studies were included with a total of 2810 participants. Thirty trials (83%) were at high risk of bias and six (17%) were at unclear risk of bias. There were 28 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Trials were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam vs placebo only. There is weak evidence from five small clinically heterogeneous trials at high risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 0.75 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardised mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 4.37, P < 0.001, I² = 91%), which translates to an increase of approximately 1.8 points on the six-point Houpt behaviour scale. There is very weak evidence from two trials which could not be pooled that inhalational nitrous oxide is more effective than placebo. Authors' conclusions There is some weak evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is very weak evidence that nitrous oxide inhalation may also be effective. There is a need for further well designed and well reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.

BACKGROUND: The permanent canine tooth in the maxillary (upper) jaw sometimes does not erupt into the mouth correctly. In about 1% to 3% of the population these teeth will be diverted into the roof of the mouth (palatally). It has been suggested that if the primary canine is removed at the right time this palatal eruption might be avoided. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of extracting the primary maxillary canine on the eruption of the palatally ectopic maxillary permanent canine. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 20 April 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 20 April 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 April 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: a randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trial, involving the extraction of the deciduous maxillary canine and assessing eruption/non‐eruption of the palatally displaced maxillary permanent canine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was undertaken independently by two review authors. The primary outcome was the reported prevalence of eruption or non‐eruption of the ectopic permanent canine into the mouth following observation or intervention. Results were to be expressed as risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity was to be investigated, including both clinical and methodological factors. Authors of trials were contacted to request unpublished data. MAIN RESULTS: Reports of two randomised controlled trials previously excluded from an earlier version of the review due to "deficiencies in reporting, insufficient data" have now been included. These two trials included approximately 128 children, with more than 150 palatally displaced canine teeth, and both were conducted by the same research group. Data presented in the trial reports are either incomplete or inconsistent. Both trials are at high risk of bias. It must be emphasised that both trials have serious deficiencies in the way they were designed, conducted, and reported, and attempts to contact the authors to obtain detailed information and clarify inconsistencies have been unsuccessful. Allocation to treatment appears to be at the level of the individual, but outcomes of successful treatment relate to included teeth and data are not reported for each treatment group. Adverse effects are not reported. Neither trial provides any evidence to guide clinical decision making. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence of the effects of extraction of primary canine teeth in 10‐13 year old children with one or two palatally displaced permanent canine teeth.

Introduction It is well recognised that mental illness causes significant morbidity and mortality, and has been identified as a national health priority. Despite this, there is a paucity of research about paramedic student perceptions and attitudes toward those experiencing mental health presentations. The objective of this study was to explore the mental health perceptions of a final year cohort of paramedic students from a regional Victorian university. Methods Final year undergraduate paramedicine students enrolled in the core subject Advanced Mental Health Practice were invited to participate in both pre- and post-subject surveys and record their perceptions of mental health using electronic questionnaires. The questionnaires used nine 5-point Likert scale questions and three multiple option questions using declarative statements. Results Of the 25 eligible students, 16 completed the pre-subject questionnaire and 12 completed both the pre- and post-subject questionnaires. The results indicated that this cohort held common myths and misconceptions relating to mental health combined with a lack of general knowledge about mental illness and its paramedic management. These perceptions altered following the introduction of the mental health subject. Conclusion The results suggest that the implementation of a mental health subject into paramedicine undergraduate curriculum has the ability to positively alter perceptions of mental health. This may lead to students acquiring the knowledge and attitudes required to manage mental health presentations.

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common chronic inflammatory disease associated with cell-mediated immunological dysfunction. Symptomatic OLP is painful and complete healing is rare. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for symptomatic OLP. The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in January 2011 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any intervention for the treatment of symptomatic OLP. A total of 28 trials were included in this Cochrane review. There was no evidence from three RCTs that topical pimecrolimus is better than placebo in reducing pain from OLP. There was weak evidence from two RCTs that topical aloe vera may be associated with a reduction in pain compared with placebo. There was weak and unreliable evidence from two small trials, at high risk of bias, that topical ciclosporin may reduce pain and clinical signs of OLP. There was no evidence (from five trials each evaluating a different steroid and/or calcineurin inhibitor) that there is a difference between treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCSs) compared with topical calcineurin inhibitors with regard to reducing pain associated with OLP or that any specific steroid therapy is more or less effective at reducing pain. Although TCSs are considered to be the first-line treatment, we did not identify any RCTs that compared TCSs with placebo in patients with symptomatic OLP. From the 28 trials included in this systematic review, the wide range of interventions compared means there is insufficient evidence to support the superior effectiveness of any specific treatment.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancers are the sixth most common cancer worldwide, yet the prognosis following a diagnosis of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers remains poor, with approximately 50% survival at five years. Despite a sharp increase in research into molecularly targeted therapies and a rapid expansion in the number of clinical trials assessing new targeted therapies, their value for treating oral cancers is unclear. Therefore, it is important to summarise the evidence to determine the efficacy and toxicity of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in addition to standard therapies, for the treatment of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 3 February 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 3 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference abstracts and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials protocols for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared targeted therapy or immunotherapy, plus standard therapy, with standard therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where necessary. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta‐analyses using random‐effects models when there were at least four studies and fixed‐effect models when fewer than four studies. We obtained or calculated a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes where possible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials (2488 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the included trials, 12% of participants (298 participants) had tumours of the oral cavity and 59% (1468 participants) had oropharyngeal tumours. The remaining 29% had tumours of the larynx or hypopharynx and less than 1% had tumours at other sites. No included trial was at low risk of bias; seven had an unclear risk of bias, and five had a high risk of bias. We grouped trials by intervention type into three main comparisons: standard therapy plus epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (EGFR mAb) therapy (follow‐up period 24 to 70 months); standard therapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (follow‐up period 40 to 60 months) and standard therapy plus immunotherapy (follow‐up period 24 to 70 months), all versus standard therapy alone. Moderate quality evidence showed that EGFR mAb therapy may result in 18% fewer deaths when added to standard therapy (HR of mortality 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 1421 participants, three studies, 67% oropharyngeal tumours, 2% oral cavity tumours). There was also moderate quality evidence that EGFR mAb may result in 32% fewer locoregional failures when added to radiotherapy (RT) (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours). A subgroup analysis separating studies by type of standard therapy (radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) showed some evidence that adding EGFR mAb therapy to RT may result in a 30% reduction in the number of people whose disease progresses (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours, unclear risk of bias). For the subgroup comparing EGFR mAb plus CRT with CRT alone there was insufficient evidence to determine whether adding EGFR mAb therapy to CRT impacts on progression‐free survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.32; 891 participants, one study, 70% oropharyngeal tumours, high risk of bias). The high subgroup heterogeneity meant that we were unable to pool these subgroups. There was evidence that adding cetuximab to standard therapy may result in increased skin toxicity and rash (RR 6.56; 95% CI 5.35 to 8.03; 1311 participants, two studies), but insufficient evidence to determine any difference in skin toxicity and rash in the case of nimotuzumab (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; 92 participants, one study). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether TKIs added to standard therapy impacts on overall survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), locoregional control (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), disease‐free survival (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.61 to 3.71; 60 participants, one study; very low quality evidence) or progression‐free survival (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence). We did find evidence of an increase in skin rash (erlotinib: RR 6.57; 95% CI 3.60 to 12.00; 191 participants, one study; lapatinib: RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.32; 67 participants, one study) and gastrointestinal complaints (lapatinib: RR 15.53; 95% CI 2.18 to 110.55; 67 participants, one study). We found very low quality evidence from one small trial that adding recombinant interleukin (rIL‐2) to surgery may increase overall survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 201 participants, 62% oral cavity tumours, 38% oropharyngeal tumours) and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rIL‐2 impacts on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found some evidence that adding EGFR mAb to standard therapy may increase overall survival, progression‐free survival and locoregional control, while resulting in an increase in skin toxicity for some mAb (cetuximab). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether adding TKIs to standard therapies changes any of our primary outcomes. Very low quality evidence from a single study suggests that rIL‐2 combined with surgery may increase overall survival compared with surgery alone.

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. To determine the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women. Desig...

Background: Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity. Objectives: To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. Data collection and analysis: Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies. Main results: We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Authors' conclusions: In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.

Background Prominent lower front teeth (termed reverse bite; under bite; Class III malocclusion) may be due to a combination of the jaw or tooth positions or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward, or both. Prominent lower front teeth can also occur if the upper front teeth (incisors) are tipped back or the lower front teeth are tipped forwards, or both. Various treatment approaches have been described to correct prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents. Search methods We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 January 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 January 2013), and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 January 2013). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting children or adolescents or both (aged 16 years or less) receiving any type of orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion). Orthodontic treatments were compared with control groups who received either no treatment, delayed treatment or a different active intervention. Data collection and analysis Screening of references, identification of included and excluded studies, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias of the included studies was performed independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. Meta-analysis was only undertaken when studies of similar comparisons reported comparable outcome measures. A fixed-effect model was used. The I2 statistic was used as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. Main results Seven RCTs with a total of 339 participants were included in this review. One study was assessed as at low risk of bias, three studies were at high risk of bias, and in the remaining three studies risk of bias was unclear. Four studies reported on the use of a facemask, two on the chin cup, one on the tandem traction bow appliance, and one on mandibular headgear. One study reported on both the chin cup and mandibular headgear appliances. One study (n = 73, low quality evidence), comparing a facemask to no treatment, reported a mean difference (MD) in overjet of 4.10 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.04 to 5.16; P value < 0.0001) favouring the facemask treatment. Two studies comparing facemasks to untreated control did not report the outcome of overjet. Three studies (n = 155, low quality evidence) reported ANB (an angular measurement relating the positions of the top and bottom jaws) differences immediately after treatment with a facemask when compared to an untreated control. The pooled data showed a statistically significant MD in ANB in favour of the facemask of 3.93 ° (95% CI 3.46 to 4.39; P value < 0.0001). There was significant heterogeneity between these studies (I2 = 82%). This is likely to have been caused by the different populations studied and the different ages at the time of treatment. One study (n = 73, low quality evidence) reported outcomes of the use of the facemask compared to an untreated control at three years follow-up. This study showed that improvements in overjet and ANB were still present three years post-treatment. In this study, adverse effects were reported but due to the low prevalence of temporomandibular (TMJ) signs and symptoms no analysis was undertaken. Two studies (n = 90, low quality evidence) compared the chin cup with an untreated control. Both studies found a statistically significant improvement in ANB, and one study also found an improvement in the Wits appraisal. Data from these two studies were not suitable for pooling. A single study of the tandem traction bow appliance compared to untreated control (n = 30, very low quality evidence) showed a statistically significant difference in both overjet and ANB favouring the intervention group. The remaining two studies did not report the primary outcome of this review. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence that the use of a facemask to correct prominent lower front teeth in children is effective when compared to no treatment on a short-term basis. However, in view of the general poor quality of the included studies, these results should be viewed with caution. Further randomised controlled trials with long follow-up are required.

Background Xerostomia is the subjective sensation of dry mouth. Common causes of xerostomia include adverse effects of many commonly prescribed medications, disease (e.g. Sjogren's Syndrome) and radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancers. Non-pharmacological techniques such as acupuncture or mild electrostimulation may be used to improve symptoms. Objectives To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions administered to stimulate saliva production for the relief of dry mouth. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 16th April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 16th April 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16th April 2013), AMED via OVID (1985 to 16th April 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1981 to 16th April 2013), and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16th April 2013). The metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were also searched to identify ongoing and completed trials. References lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. There were no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. Selection criteria We included parallel group randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to treat dry mouth, where participants had dry mouth symptoms at baseline. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assess risk of bias and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes or where different scales were used to assess an outcome, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) together with 95% CIs. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information. Main results There were nine studies (total 366 participants randomised) included in this review of non-pharmacological interventions for dry mouth which were divided into three comparisons. Eight studies were assessed at high risk of bias in at least one domain and the remaining study was at unclear risk of bias. Five small studies (total 153 participants, with dry mouth following radiotherapy treatment) compared acupuncture with placebo. Four were assessed at high risk and one at unclear risk of bias. Two trials reported outcome data for dry mouth in a form suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of these two trials (70 participants, low quality evidence) showed no difference between acupuncture and control in dry mouth symptoms (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.14, P value 0.17, I2 = 39%) with the confidence intervals including both a possible reduction or a possible increase in dry mouth symptoms. Acupuncture was associated with more adverse effects (tiny bruises and tiredness which were mild and temporary). There was a very small increase in unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) at the end of 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) (MD 0.02 ml/minute, 95% CI 0 to 0.04, P value 0.04, I2 = 57%), and this benefit persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence) (UWS, MD 0.06 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11, P value 0.03, I2 = 10%). For the outcome of stimulated whole saliva (SWS, three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) there was a benefit favouring acupuncture (MD 0.19 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31, P value 0.002, I2 = 1%) an effect which also persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (SWS MD 0.28 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47, P value 0.004, I2 = 0%) (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence). Two small studies, both at high risk of bias, compared the use of an electrostimulation device with a placebo device in participants with Sjogren's Syndrome (total 101 participants). A further study, also at high risk of bias, compared acupuncture-like electrostimulation of different sets of points in participants who had previously been treated with radiotherapy. None of these studies reported the outcome of dry mouth. There was no difference between electrostimulation and placebo in the outcomes of UWS or SWS at the end of the 4-week treatment period in the one study (very low that provided data for these outcomes. No adverse effects were reported. A single study at high risk of bias, compared the stimulatory effect of powered versus manual toothbrushing and found no difference for the outcomes of UWS or SWS. Authors' conclusions There is low quality evidence that acupuncture is no different from placebo acupuncture with regard to dry mouth symptoms, which is the most important outcome. This may be because there were insufficient participants included in the two trials to show a possible effect or it may be that there was some benefit due to 'placebo' acupuncture which could have biased the effect to the null. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms. It is well known that dry mouth symptoms may be problematic even when saliva production is increased, yet only two of the trials that evaluated acupuncture reported dry mouth symptoms, a worrying reporting bias. There is some low quality evidence that acupuncture results in a small increase in saliva production in patients with dry mouth following radiotherapy. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms or saliva production in patients with Sjogren's Syndrome. Reported adverse effects of acupuncture are mild and of short duration, and there were no reported adverse effects from electrostimulation.

Xerostomia is the subjective sensation of dry mouth. Common causes of xerostomia include adverse effects of many commonly prescribed medications, disease (e.g. Sjogren's Syndrome) and radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancers. Non-pharmacological techniques such as acupuncture or mild electrostimulation may be used to improve symptoms.To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions administered to stimulate saliva production for the relief of dry mouth.We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 16th April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 16th April 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16th April 2013), AMED via OVID (1985 to 16th April 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1981 to 16th April 2013), and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16th April 2013). The metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) were also searched to identify ongoing and completed trials. References lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. There were no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status.We included parallel group randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to treat dry mouth, where participants had dry mouth symptoms at baseline.At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assess risk of bias and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes or where different scales were used to assess an outcome, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) together with 95% CIs. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information.There were nine studies (total 366 participants randomised) included in this review of non-pharmacological interventions for dry mouth which were divided into three comparisons. Eight studies were assessed at high risk of bias in at least one domain and the remaining study was at unclear risk of bias.Five small studies (total 153 participants, with dry mouth following radiotherapy treatment) compared acupuncture with placebo. Four were assessed at high risk and one at unclear risk of bias. Two trials reported outcome data for dry mouth in a form suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of these two trials (70 participants, low quality evidence) showed no difference between acupuncture and control in dry mouth symptoms (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.14, P value 0.17, I(2) = 39%) with the confidence intervals including both a possible reduction or a possible increase in dry mouth symptoms. Acupuncture was associated with more adverse effects (tiny bruises and tiredness which were mild and temporary). There was a very small increase in unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) at the end of 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) (MD 0.02 ml/minute, 95% CI 0 to 0.04, P value 0.04, I(2) = 57%), and this benefit persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence) (UWS, MD 0.06 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11, P value 0.03, I(2) = 10%). For the outcome of stimulated whole saliva (SWS, three trials, 71 participants, low quality evidence) there was a benefit favouring acupuncture (MD 0.19 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.31, P value 0.002, I(2) = 1%) an effect which also persisted at the 12-month follow-up evaluation (SWS MD 0.28 ml/minute, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47, P value 0.004, I(2) = 0%) (two trials, 54 participants, low quality evidence).Two small studies, both at high risk of bias, compared the use of an electrostimulation device with a placebo device in participants with Sjögren's Syndrome (total 101 participants). A further study, also at high risk of bias, compared acupuncture-like electrostimulation of different sets of points in participants who had previously been treated with radiotherapy. None of these studies reported the outcome of dry mouth. There was no difference between electrostimulation and placebo in the outcomes of UWS or SWS at the end of the 4-week treatment period in the one study (very low that provided data for these outcomes. No adverse effects were reported.A single study at high risk of bias, compared the stimulatory effect of powered versus manual toothbrushing and found no difference for the outcomes of UWS or SWS.There is low quality evidence that acupuncture is no different from placebo acupuncture with regard to dry mouth symptoms, which is the most important outcome. This may be because there were insufficient participants included in the two trials to show a possible effect or it may be that there was some benefit due to 'placebo' acupuncture which could have biased the effect to the null. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms. It is well known that dry mouth symptoms may be problematic even when saliva production is increased, yet only two of the trials that evaluated acupuncture reported dry mouth symptoms, a worrying reporting bias. There is some low quality evidence that acupuncture results in a small increase in saliva production in patients with dry mouth following radiotherapy.There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of electrostimulation devices on dry mouth symptoms or saliva production in patients with Sjögren's Syndrome. Reported adverse effects of acupuncture are mild and of short duration, and there were no reported adverse effects from electrostimulation.

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients. Objectives To assess the effects of oral hygiene care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs). Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 17 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 December 2015), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 December 2015), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 17 December 2015), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 17 December 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013) and VIP Database (January 2012 to 4 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 17 December 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies. Main results We included 38 RCTs (6016 participants). There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing; powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of oral care solutions. We assessed the overall risk of bias as low in five trials (13%), high in 26 trials (68%), and unclear in seven trials (18%). We did not consider the risk of bias to be serious when assessing the quality of evidence (GRADE) for VAP incidence, but we downgraded other outcomes for risk of bias. High quality evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 24% to about 18% (RR 0.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.62 to 0.91, P = 0.004, I2 = 35%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (95% CI 9 to 50), which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP would be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.20, I2 = 0%, 14 RCTs, 2014 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I2 = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence), or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I2 = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups. We are uncertain as to the effects of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I2 = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review. Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias), and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P < 0.001, I2 = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions. Authors' conclusions OHC including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 24% to about 18%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons. 1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel‐titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) ‐7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low‐quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD ‐2.68 mm, 95% CI ‐6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). 2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low‐quality evidence). Pain was not measured. 3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low‐ to very low‐quality evidence). 4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low‐quality evidence). Pain was not measured. 5. Single‐strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate‐quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD ‐6.76 mm, 95% CI ‐7.98 to ‐5.55). Pain was not measured. 6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta‐analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low‐quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate‐quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel‐titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single‐strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate‐quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption.

Universities are huge multidisciplinary enterprises of learning and scholarship that have evolved from the traditional biblical Tower of Babel (Kaghan & Phillips, 1998). The reality is very different, with both students and academics facing the challenges of how to both create new knowledge and impart it to a new generation of students and future professionals.

BACKGROUND: Early dental decay or demineralised lesions (DLs, also known as white spot lesions) can appear on teeth during fixed orthodontic (brace) treatment. Fluoride reduces decay in susceptible individuals, including orthodontic patients. This review compared various forms of topical fluoride to prevent the development of DLs during orthodontic treatment. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate whether topical fluoride reduces the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs after fixed appliances. The secondary objectives were to examine the effectiveness of different modes of topical fluoride delivery in reducing the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs, as well as the severity of lesions, in terms of number, size and colour. Participant‐assessed outcomes, such as perception of DLs, and oral health‐related quality of life data were to be included, as would reports of adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 1 February 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 1 February 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 1 February 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 1 February 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel‐group, randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a fluoride‐containing product versus a placebo, no treatment or a different type of fluoride treatment, in which the outcome of enamel demineralisation was assessed at the start and at the end of orthodontic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently, in duplicate, conducted risk of bias assessments and extracted data. Authors of trials were contacted to obtain missing data or to ask for clarification of aspects of trial methodology. Cochrane's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 10 studies and contains data from nine studies, comparing eight interventions, involving 1798 randomised participants (1580 analysed). One report contained insufficient information and the authors have been contacted. We assessed two studies as at low risk of bias, six at unclear risk of bias, and two at high risk of bias. Two placebo (non‐fluoride) controlled studies, at low risk of bias, investigated the professional application of varnish (7700 or 10,000 parts per million (ppm) fluoride (F)), every six weeks and found insufficient evidence of a difference regarding its effectiveness in preventing new DLs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.93; 405 participants; low‐certainty evidence). One placebo (non‐fluoride) controlled study, at unclear risk of bias, provides a low level of certainty that fluoride foam (12,300 ppm F), professionally applied every two months, may reduce the incidence of new DLs (12% versus 49%) after fixed orthodontic treatment (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57; 95 participants). One study, at unclear risk of bias, also provides a low level of certainty that use of a high‐concentration fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) by patients may reduce the incidence of new DLs (18% versus 27%) compared with a conventional fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm F) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.00; 380 participants). There was no evidence for a difference in the proportions of orthodontic patients with new DLs on the teeth after treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances for the following comparisons: ‐ an amine fluoride and stannous fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse combination versus a sodium fluoride toothpaste/mouthrinse, ‐ an amine fluoride gel versus a non‐fluoride placebo applied by participants at home once a week and by professional application every three months, ‐ resin‐modified glass ionomer cement versus light‐cured composite resin for bonding orthodontic brackets, ‐ a 250 ppm F mouthrinse versus 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, ‐ the use of an intraoral fluoride‐releasing glass bead device attached to the brace versus a daily fluoride mouthrinse. The last two comparisons involved studies that were assessed at high risk of bias, because a substantial number of participants were lost to follow‐up. Unfortunately, although the internal validity and hence the quality of the studies has improved since the first version of the review, they have compared different interventions; therefore, the findings are only considered to provide low level of certainty, because none has been replicated by follow‐up studies, in different settings, to confirm external validity. A patient‐reported outcome, such as concern about the aesthetics of any DLs, was still not included as an outcome in any study. Reports of adverse effects from topical fluoride applications were rare and unlikely to be significant. One study involving fluoride‐containing glass beads reported numerous breakages. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found a low level of certainty that 12,300 ppm F foam applied by a professional every 6 to 8 weeks throughout fixed orthodontic treatment, might be effective in reducing the proportion of orthodontic patients with new DLs. In addition, there is a low level of certainty that the patient use of a high fluoride toothpaste (5000 ppm F) throughout orthodontic treatment, might be more effective than a conventional fluoride toothpaste. These two comparisons were based on single studies. There was insufficient evidence of a difference regarding the professional application of fluoride varnish (7700 or 10,000 ppm F). Further adequately powered, randomised controlled trials are required to increase the certainty of these findings and to determine the best means of preventing DLs in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. The most accurate means of assessing adherence with the use of fluoride products by patients and any possible adverse effects also need to be considered. Future studies should follow up participants beyond the end of orthodontic treatment to determine the effect of DLs on patient satisfaction with treatment.

BACKGROUND: Reduced circulating estrogen levels around the time of the menopause can induce unacceptable symptoms that affect the health and well‐being of women. Hormone therapy (both unopposed estrogen and estrogen/progestogen combinations) is an effective treatment for these symptoms, but is associated with risk of harms. Guidelines recommend that hormone therapy be given at the lowest effective dose and treatment should be reviewed regularly. The aim of this review is to identify the minimum dose(s) of progestogen required to be added to estrogen so that the rate of endometrial hyperplasia is not increased compared to placebo. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess which hormone therapy regimens provide effective protection against the development of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched January 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), Current Contents (1993 to May 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to 2008), Social Sciences Index (1980 to May 2008), PsycINFO (1972 to January 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). Attempts were made to identify trials from citation lists of reviews and studies retrieved, and drug companies were contacted for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparisons of unopposed estrogen therapy, combined continuous estrogen‐progestogen therapy, sequential estrogen‐progestogen therapy with each other or placebo, administered over a minimum period of 12 months. Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia/carcinoma assessed by a biopsy at the end of treatment was a required outcome. Data on adherence to therapy, rates of additional interventions, and withdrawals owing to adverse events were also extracted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In this update, 46 studies were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The small numbers of studies in each comparison and the clinical heterogeneity precluded meta‐analysis for many outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Unopposed estrogen is associated with increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia at all doses, and durations of therapy between one and three years. For women with a uterus the risk of endometrial hyperplasia with hormone therapy comprising low‐dose estrogen continuously combined with a minimum of 1 mg norethisterone acetate (NETA) or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is not significantly different from placebo at two years (1 mg NETA: OR 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 2.8; 1.5 mg MPA: no hyperplasia events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with an intact uterus should comprise both estrogen and progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.

Background Xerostomia (the feeling of dry mouth) is a common symptom especially in older adults. Causes of dry mouth include medications, autoimmune disease (Sjogren's Syndrome), radiotherapy or chemotherapy for cancer, hormone disorders and infections. Objectives To determine which topical treatments for dry mouth are effective in reducing this symptom. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (28 October 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4 2011), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 28 October 2011), AMED via OVID (1985 to 28 October 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 28 October 2011). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of topical interventions such as lozenges, sprays, mouthrinses, gels, oils, chewing gum or toothpastes for the treatment of dry mouth symptom. We classified interventions into two broad categories, saliva stimulants and saliva substitutes, and these were compared with either placebo or another intervention. We included both parallel group and crossover trials. Data collection and analysis Two or more review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted for additional information as required. Main results Thirty-six randomised controlled trials involving 1597 participants met the inclusion criteria. Two trials compared saliva stimulants to placebo, nine trials compared saliva substitutes to placebo, five trials compared saliva stimulants directly with saliva substitutes, 18 trials directly compared two or more saliva substitutes, and two trials directly compared two or more saliva stimulants. Only one trial was at low risk of bias and 17 were at high risk of bias. Due to the range of interventions, comparisons and outcome measures in the trials, meta-analysis was possible for only a few comparisons. Oxygenated glycerol triester (OGT) saliva substitute spray shows evidence of effectiveness compared to an electrolyte spray (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.15) which corresponds to approximately a mean difference of 2 points on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for mouth dryness. Both integrated mouthcare systems (toothpaste + gel + mouthwash) and oral reservoir devices show promising results but there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend their use. Although chewing gum is associated with increased saliva production in the majority of those with residual capacity, there is no evidence that gum is more or less effective than saliva substitutes. Authors' conclusions There is no strong evidence from this review that any topical therapy is effective for relieving the symptom of dry mouth. OGT spray is more effective than an aqueous electrolyte spray (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) which is approximately equivalent to a mean difference of 2 points on a 10-point VAS scale for mouth dryness. Chewing gums appear to increase saliva production in those with residual secretory capacity and may be preferred by patients, but there is no evidence that gum is better or worse than saliva substitutes. Integrated mouthcare systems and oral reservoir devices may be helpful but further research is required to confirm this. Well designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trials of topical interventions for dry mouth, which are designed and reported according to CONSORT guidelines, are required to provide evidence to guide clinical care. For many people the symptom of dry mouth is a chronic problem and trials should evaluate whether treatments are palatable, effective in reducing xerostomia, as well as the long-term effects of treatments on quality of life of those with chronic dry mouth symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic T cell‐mediated disease, which can cause significant pain, particularly in its erosive or ulcerative forms. As pain is the indication for treatment of OLP, pain resolution is the primary outcome for this review. This review is an update of a version last published in 2011, but focuses on the evidence for corticosteroid treatment only. A second review considering non‐corticosteroid treatments is in progress. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of corticosteroids, in any formulation, for treating people with symptoms of oral lichen planus. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 25 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of any local or systemic corticosteroid treatment compared with a placebo, a calcineurin inhibitor, another corticosteroid, any other local or systemic (or both) drug, or the same corticosteroid plus an adjunctive treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently scanned the titles and abstracts of all reports identified, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data from included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we expressed the estimates of effects of an intervention as risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. The statistical unit of analysis was the participant. We conducted meta‐analyses only with studies of similar comparisons reporting the same outcome measures. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies (1474 participants) in this review. We assessed seven studies at low risk of bias overall, 11 at unclear and the remaining 17 studies at high risk of bias. We present results for our main outcomes, pain and clinical resolution measured at the end of the treatment course (between one week and six months), and adverse effects. The limited evidence available for comparisons between different corticosteroids, and corticosteroids versus alternative or adjunctive treatments is presented in the full review. Corticosteroids versus placebo Three studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids in an adhesive base compared to placebo. We were able to combine two studies in meta‐analyses, one evaluating clobetasol propionate and the other flucinonide. We found low‐certainty evidence that pain may be more likely to be resolved when using a topical corticosteroid rather than a placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.36; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%). The results for clinical effect of treatment and adverse effects were inconclusive (clinical resolution: RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 47.58; 2 studies, 72 participants; I² = 0%; very low‐certainty evidence; adverse effects RR 1.48, 95% 0.48 to 4.56; 3 studies, 88 participants, I² = 0%, very low‐certainty evidence). Corticosteroids versus calcineurin inhibitors Three studies compared topical clobetasol propionate versus topical tacrolimus. We found very low‐certainty evidence regarding any difference between tacrolimus and clobetasol for the outcomes pain resolution (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.88; 2 studies, 100 participants; I² = 80%), clinical resolution (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99; 2 studies, 52 participants; I² = 95%) and adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) . One study (39 participants) compared topical clobetasol and ciclosporin, and provided only very low‐certainty evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution with clobetasol (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.93), pain resolution (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.86) and adverse effects (RR 6.32, 95% CI 0.84 to 47.69). Two studies (60 participants) that compared triamcinolone and tacrolimus found uncertain evidence regarding the rate of clinical resolution (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35; very low‐certainty evidence) and that there may be a lower rate of adverse effects in the triamcinolone group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99; low‐certainty evidence). These studies did not report on pain resolution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids have been first line for the treatment of OLP. This review found that these drugs, delivered topically as adhesive gels or similar preparations, may be more effective than placebo for reducing the pain of symptomatic OLP; however, with the small number of studies and participants, our confidence in the reliability of this finding is low. The results for clinical response were inconclusive, and we are uncertain about adverse effects. Very low‐certainty evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitors, specifically tacrolimus, may be more effective at resolving pain than corticosteroids, although there is some uncertainty about adverse effects and clinical response to tacrolimus showed conflicting results.

Background:\ud \ud Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud \ud To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease‐free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud \ud An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud \ud We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud \ud For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease‐free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment).\ud \ud We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.\ud \ud Main results:\ud \ud We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias. \ud \ud For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5‐fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low‐certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5‐fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low‐certainty evidence). \ud \ud There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post‐surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post‐surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence).\ud \ud Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). \ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud \ud The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative‐intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

BackgroundTreatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.Search methodsElectronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.Data collection and analysisInformation regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random‐effects models.Main resultsA total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta‐analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate.Authors' conclusionsTen interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

BACKGROUND: The management of advanced oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is problematic and has traditionally relied on surgery and radiotherapy, both of which are associated with substantial adverse effects. Radiotherapy has been in use since the 1950s and has traditionally been given as single daily doses. This method of dividing up the total dose, or fractionation, has been modified over the years and a variety of approaches have been developed with the aim of improving survival whilst maintaining acceptable toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To determine which radiotherapy regimens for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and locoregional control. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 July 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 28 July 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 July 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more radiotherapy regimens, radiotherapy versus other treatment modality, or the addition of radiotherapy to other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS: 30 trials involving 6535 participants were included. Seventeen trials compared some form of altered fractionation (hyperfractionation/accelerated) radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy; three trials compared different altered fractionation regimens; one trial compared timing of radiotherapy, five trials evaluated neutron therapy and four trials evaluated the addition of pre-operative radiotherapy. Pooling trials of any altered fractionation radiotherapy compared to a conventional schedule showed a statistically significant reduction in total mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98). In addition, a statistically significant difference in favour of the altered fractionation was shown for the outcome of locoregional control (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89). No statistically significant difference was shown for disease free survival.No statistically significant difference was shown for any other comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with an improvement in overall survival and locoregional control in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. More accurate methods of reporting adverse events are needed in order to truly assess the clinical performance of different radiotherapy regimens.

BACKGROUND Over the last ten years laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach for the surgical removal of benign ovarian tumours. There remains uncertainty as to the value of this intervention. This review has been undertaken to assess the available evidence for the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian tumours compared to laparotomy. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy, safety and cost of laparoscopic surgery compared with laparotomy in women with ovarian tumours assumed to be benign. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched electronic databases, trials registers and reference lists of published trial reports. Review articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three reviewers independently assessed each study's eligibility and quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS Six randomised controlled trials were identified involving 324 patients. Three subgroups of ovarian tumours were considered: any histological type of benign ovarian tumour, dermoid cysts and endometriomata. Surgical outcomes: The mean duration of surgery was longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the laparotomy group overall (WMD 11.39; 95% CI 0.57 to 22.22). However, heterogeneity was present with substantial inconsistency (I(2)=87%) . The heterogeneity found in these analyses was likely to reflect differences in the patient populations. Adverse effects of surgery: The pooled estimate for febrile morbidity decreased for laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (Peto OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88). The odds of any adverse effect of surgery (total number of complications - surgical injury and/or post operative complications) were decreased after laparoscopic procedures (Peto OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.55). Short-term recovery: VAS pain scores favoured laparoscopy (WMD -2.36; 95% CI -2.07 to -2.03) andt he odds of being pain free were significantly greater for the laparoscopy group compared to laparotomy (Peto OR 7.35; 95% CI 4.3 to 12.56). Mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopy group with reduction 2.79 days (95% CI -2.95 to -2.62) compared to laparotomy. Economic outcomes: There was a significant reduction of US$1045 (95% CI -1361 to -726.97) in the laparoscopy group compared to the laparotomy group in one trial of women with any type of benign ovarian tumour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In women undergoing surgery for benign ovarian tumours, laparoscopy is associated with a reduction in the following; febrile morbidity, urinary tract infection, post operative complications, post operative pain, days in hospital and total cost. These findings should be interpreted with caution as only a small number of studies were identified including a total of only 324 women and not all of the important outcomes were reported in each study.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 10% to 15% of reproductive‐age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is combining surgery and medical therapy to reduce the recurrence of endometriosis. Though the combination of surgery and medical therapy appears to be beneficial, there is a lack of clarity about the appropriate timing of when medical therapy should be used in relation with surgery, that is, before, after, or both before and after surgery, to maximize treatment response. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or both before and after surgery for endometriosis for improving painful symptoms, reducing disease recurrence, and increasing pregnancy rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in November 2019 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared medical therapies for hormonal suppression before, after, or before and after, therapeutic surgery for endometriosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we combined data using risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Primary outcomes were: painful symptoms of endometriosis as measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, other validated scales or dichotomous outcomes; and recurrence of disease as evidenced by EEC (Endoscopic Endometriosis Classification), rAFS (revised American Fertility Society), or rASRM (revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine) scores at second‐look laparoscopy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials with 3378 women with endometriosis. We used the term "surgery alone" to refer to placebo or no medical therapy. Presurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy Compared to surgery alone, we are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression reduces pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low‐quality evidence) or whether it reduces disease recurrence at 12 months – total (AFS score) (MD –9.6, 95% CI –11.42 to –7.78; 1 RCT, n = 80; very low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression decreases disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) compared to surgery alone (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain if presurgical medical hormonal suppression improves pregnancy rates compared to surgery alone (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.45; 1 RCT, n = 262; very low‐quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less. Postsurgical medical therapy compared with placebo or no medical therapy We are uncertain about the improvement observed in pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous) between postsurgical medical hormonal suppression and surgery alone (SMD ‐0.79, 95% CI ‐1.02 to ‐0.56; 3 RCTs, n = 340; I(2) = 91%; very low‐quality evidence). Compared to surgery alone, postsurgical medical therapy may decrease pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5 RCTs, n = 657; I(2) = 0%; low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain if postsurgical medical hormonal suppression improves disease recurrence at 12 months – total (AFS score) compared to surgery alone (MD –2.29, 95% CI –4.01 to –0.57; 1 RCT, n = 51; very low‐quality evidence). Disease recurrence at 12 months or less may be reduced with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, n = 433; I(2) = 58%; low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain if postsurgical medical hormonal suppression improves disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.15; 1 RCT, n = 285; very low‐quality evidence). Pregnancy rate is probably increased with postsurgical medical hormonal suppression compared to surgery alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38; 11 RCTs, n = 955; I(2) = 27%; moderate‐quality evidence). Pre‐ and postsurgical medical therapy compared with surgery alone or surgery and placebo There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Presurgical medical therapy compared with postsurgical medical therapy We are uncertain about the difference in pain recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, n = 326; I(2) = 2%; low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in disease recurrence at 12 months or less (EEC stage) between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.65; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low‐quality evidence). We are uncertain about the difference in pregnancy rate between postsurgical and presurgical medical hormonal suppression therapy (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 1 RCT, n = 273; very low‐quality evidence). No trials reported pelvic pain at 12 months or less (continuous), disease recurrence at 12 months – total (AFS score) or disease recurrence at 12 months or less (dichotomous). Postsurgical medical therapy compared with pre‐ and postsurgical medical therapy There were no trials identified in the search for this comparison. Serious adverse effects for medical therapies reviewed There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding serious adverse effects, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the data about the efficacy of medical therapy for endometriosis are inconclusive, related to the timing of hormonal suppression therapy relative to surgery for endometriosis. In our various comparisons of the timing of hormonal suppression therapy, women who receive postsurgical medical therapy compared with no medical therapy or placebo may experience benefit in terms of pain recurrence, disease recurrence, and pregnancy. There is insufficient evidence regarding hormonal suppression therapy at other time points in relation to surgery for women with endometriosis.

Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them.To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.Computerised searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE and EMBASE were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of the most recent searches June 2006: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life.Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Quality assessment was carried out on these three criteria. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed effect models.Twenty-six trials involving 1353 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four agents, each in single trials, were found to be effective for improving (allopurinol RR 3.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 10.49; granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.24; immunoglobulin RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.65; human placentral extract RR 4.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.86) or eradicating mucositis (allopurinol RR 19.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 307.63). Three of these trials were rated as at moderate risk of bias and one as at high risk of bias. The following agents were not found to be effective: benzydamine HCl, sucralfate, tetrachlorodecaoxide, chlorhexidine and 'magic' (lidocaine solution, diphenhydramine hydrochloride and aluminum hydroxide suspension). Six trials compared the time to heal and mucositis was found to heal more quickly with two interventions: granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor when compared to povidone iodine, with mean difference -3.5 days (95% CI -4.1 to -2.9) and allopurinol compared to placebo, with mean difference -4.5 days (95% CI -5.8 to -3.2). Three trials compared patient controlled analgesia (PCA) to the continuous infusion method for controlling pain. There was no evidence of a difference, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, and the duration of pain was shorter. One trial demonstrated that pharmacokinetically based analgesia (PKPCA) reduced pain compared with PCA: however, more opiate was used with PKPCA.There is weak and unreliable evidence that allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin or human placental extract improve or eradicate mucositis. There is no evidence that patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than continuous infusion method for controlling pain, however, less opiate was used per hour, and duration of pain was shorter, for PCA. Further, well designed, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of allopurinol mouthwash, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, immunoglobulin, human placental extract, other interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

To determine the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women.Systematic review of common diagnostic imaging tests.Relevant papers were identified through electronic searching of MEDLINE (1980 to July 2001) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2001) and manual searching of a bibliography of primary and review articles.Studies were selected if accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy was compared with a reference standard and included data that could be abstracted into a two-by-two table in order to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by calculating positive and negative likelihood ratios for all intrauterine pathologies, submucous fibroids and endometrial hyperplasia.Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant heterogeneity was present between the likelihood ratios for studies of transvaginal ultrasound. A positive test result with sonohysterography diagnosed submucous fibroids with a pooled likelihood ratio of 29.7 (17.8, 49.6). A positive test result with hysteroscopy diagnosed submucous fibroids with a pooled likelihood ratio of 29.4 (13.4, 65.3), and any intrauterine pathology with a pooled likelihood ratio of 7.7 (4.3, 13.7). A negative test result with hysteroscopy for diagnosing any intrauterine pathology had a pooled likelihood ratio of 0.07 (0.04, 0.15).Although there was considerable variability present between the studies, all three diagnostic tests were moderately accurate in detecting intrauterine pathology. However, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy performed better than transvaginal ultrasound in detecting submucous fibroids.

Background: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early-stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011. Objectives: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease-free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms. Search methods: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies. Main results: We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons. Future research may change the findings as there is only very low-certainty evidence available for all results. Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease-free survival. The meta-analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease-free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta-analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive. Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease-free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence. One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations. One trial comparing positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes. Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials. The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Authors' conclusions: Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta-analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease-free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease-free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET-CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments.