One-splint versus two-splint technique in orthognathic surgery for class III asymmetry: comparison of patient-centred outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Two-jaw orthognathic surgery (OGS) is done using either the one-splint technique with free-hand positioning of the maxillomandibular complex or the two-splint technique with intermediate splints to position the maxilla. It is uncertain which technique achieves better outcomes. This study compares frontal soft tissue symmetry and subjective patient QoL between one-splint and two-splint techniques in skeletal Class III asymmetry patients undergoing OGS with three-dimensional surgical planning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective case-control study comprised 34 one-splint and 46 two-splint OGS patients. Frontal photographs and Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) were done pre- and post-treatment. Frontal soft tissue symmetry was analysed with the anthropometric Facial Symmetry Index. Measurements were compared with t-tests and chi-squared tests with p-value set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The groups differed in pre-treatment ANB and OQLQ scores. The two-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures. The one-splint group showed significant improvement in all symmetry measures except midface deviation, upper contour deviation and the Facial Contour Symmetry Index. Both groups showed significant improvement in OQLQ scores. There were no significant differences in post-treatment symmetry measurements and OQLQ scores between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although two-splint technique may better improve contour symmetry, there were no significant differences in frontal soft tissue symmetry and QoL after OGS in skeletal Class III asymmetry with either one-splint or two-splint technique, with both techniques resulting in significant improvement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

One-splint and two-splint surgical techniques produce similar patient-centred outcomes in Class III asymmetry patients.

Prevention Program Including Fluoride Varnish and 1450-ppm Fluoride Toothpaste Targeting Young Children in Clinical Setting in UK did not Stop Sental Caries From Developing but Slowed Lesion Progression

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

A randomized controlled trial of caries prevention in dental practice. Tickle M, O'Neill C, Donaldson M, Birch S, Noble S, Killough S, Murphy L, Greer M, Brodison J, Verghis R, Worthington HV. J Dent Res 2017; 96:741-46.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme in UK.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial with a parallel design.

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development.

METHODS

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted-the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named "primary sub-items".

RESULTS

Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER.

Single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

Single-visit root canal treatment has some advantages over conventional multivisit treatment, but might increase the risk of complications. We systematically evaluated the risk of complications after single-visit or multiple-visit root canal treatment using meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.

DATA

Controlled trials comparing single-visit versus multiple-visit root canal treatment of permanent teeth were included. Trials needed to assess the risk of long-term complications (pain, infection, new/persisting/increasing periapical lesions ≥1 year after treatment), short-term pain or flare-up (acute exacerbation of initiation or continuation of root canal treatment).

SOURCES

Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) were screened, random-effects meta-analyses performed and trial-sequential analysis used to control for risk of random errors. Evidence was graded according to GRADE.

STUDY SELECTION

29 trials (4341 patients) were included, all but 6 showing high risk of bias. Based on 10 trials (1257 teeth), risk of complications was not significantly different in single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.35); weak evidence). Based on 20 studies (3008 teeth), risk of pain did not significantly differ between treatments (RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.30); moderate evidence). Risk of flare-up was recorded by 8 studies (1110 teeth) and was significantly higher after single-visit versus multiple-visit treatment (RR 2.13 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.89); very weak evidence). Trial-sequential analysis revealed that firm evidence for benefit, harm or futility was not reached for any of the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to rule out whether important differences between both strategies exist.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dentists can provide root canal treatment in 1 or multiple visits. Given the possibly increased risk of flare-ups, multiple-visit treatment might be preferred for certain teeth (eg, those with periapical lesions).

European COMPARative Effectiveness research on blended Depression treatment versus treatment-as-usual (E-COMPARED): study protocol for a randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries

Background

Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care.

Methods/design

E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to “blended” service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country).

Discussion

The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment.

Trial registration

France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891. Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866. Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962. Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660. Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684. Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447. Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616. Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725. Registered on 20 March 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1511-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Testing patient targeted therapies in patients with temporomandibular joint disorder with the arthrokinetic reflex: individual patient research

Traditional research in the health sciences has involved control and experimental groups of patients, and descriptive and inferential statistical analyses performed on the measurements obtained from the samples in each group. As the novel model of translational healthcare, which integrates translational research and translational effectiveness, becomes increasingly established in modern contemporary medicine, healthcare continues to evolve into a model of care that is evidence-based, effectiveness-focused and patient-centered. Patient-centered care and patient-targeted therapies require the timely and critical development and validation of a new research paradigm, individual patient research (IPR), as opposed to the customary group research approach. Here, we propose a model of individual patient research to define and characterize the effectiveness of a novel therapeutic intervention for temporomandibular joint disorder. The intervention must be tailor-made for each individual patient, and the data from each patient must be analyzed individually. We propose that this endeavor is best achieved by means of an adaptive cluster randomized stepped wedge blinded controlled trial, because it permit individual patient outcomes research and analysis, ensures equipoise, and maintains adequate power. The patient targeted therapies section of the Journal of Translational Medicine must endeavor to facilitate the dissemination of studies that focus broadly on translational research for the ultimate benefit of individual patients.