S-Adenosylmethionine for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of -0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 = 54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event, and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of 1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant. No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative risks for safety outcomes and used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. The analysis of pain was based on predicted estimates from meta-regression using the standard error as explanatory variable. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified 14 additional trials resulting in the inclusion of 18 small trials in 813 patients. Eleven trials used TENS, four interferential current stimulation, one both TENS and interferential current stimulation, and two pulsed electrostimulation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 80%) was revealed. The funnel plot for pain was asymmetrical (P < 0.001). The predicted SMD of pain intensity in trials as large as the largest trial was -0.07 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.32), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between electrostimulation and control of 0.2 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. There was little evidence that SMDs differed on the type of electrostimulation (P = 0.94). The relative risk of being withdrawn or dropping out due to adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.2 to 6.0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we could not confirm that transcutaneous electrostimulation is effective for pain relief. The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of only small trials of questionable quality. Appropriately designed trials of adequate power are warranted.

Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

AIM: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and mini screws. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies on palatal implants, Onplants((R)), miniplates and miniscrews with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 weeks and of at least 10 units per modality having been examined clinically at a follow-up visit. Assessment of studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Reported failures of used devices were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of failure and survival proportions. RESULTS: The search up to January 2009 provided 390 titles and 71 abstracts with full-text analysis of 34 articles, yielding 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis, the failure rate for Onplants((R)) was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.9-35.8%), 10.5% for palatal implants (95% CI: 6.1-18.1%), 16.4% for miniscrews (95% CI: 13.4-20.1%) and 7.3% for miniplates (95% CI: 5.4-9.9%). Miniplates and palatal implants, representing torque-resisting temporary anchorage devices (TADs), when grouped together, showed a 1.92-fold (95% CI: 1.06-2.78) lower clinical failure rate than miniscrews. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence in the literature, palatal implants and miniplates showed comparable survival rates of >or=90% over a period of at least 12 weeks, and yielded superior survival than miniscrews. Palatal implants and miniplates for temporary anchorage provide reliable absolute orthodontic anchorage. If the intended orthodontic treatment would require multiple miniscrew placement to provide adequate anchorage, the reliability of such systems is questionable. For patients who are undergoing extensive orthodontic treatment, force vectors may need to be varied or the roots of the teeth to be moved may need to slide past the anchors. In this context, palatal implants or miniplates should be the TADs of choice.

Treatment response of cystic echinococcosis to benzimidazoles: a systematic review

Over the past 30 years, benzimidazoles have increasingly been used to treat cystic echinococcosis (CE). The efficacy of benzimidazoles, however, remains unclear. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SIGLE, and CCTR to identify studies on benzimidazole treatment outcome. A large heterogeneity of methods in 23 reports precluded a meta-analysis of published results. Specialist centres were contacted to provide individual patient data. We conducted survival analyses for cyst response defined as inactive (CE4 or CE5 by the ultrasound-based World Health Organisation [WHO] classification scheme) or as disappeared. We collected data from 711 treated patients with 1,308 cysts from six centres (five countries). Analysis was restricted to 1,159 liver and peritoneal cysts. Overall, 1-2 y after initiation of benzimidazole treatment 50%-75% of active C1 cysts were classified as inactive/disappeared compared to 30%-55% of CE2 and CE3 cysts. Further in analyzing the rate of inactivation/disappearance with regard to cyst size, 50%-60% of cysts <6 cm responded to treatment after 1-2 y compared to 25%-50% of cysts >6 cm. However, 25% of cysts reverted to active status within 1.5 to 2 y after having initially responded and multiple relapses were observed; after the second and third treatment 60% of cysts relapsed within 2 y. We estimated that 2 y after treatment initiation 40% of cysts are still active or become active again. The overall efficacy of benzimidazoles has been overstated in the past. There is an urgent need for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial that compares standardized benzimidazole therapy on responsive cyst stages with the other treatment modalities.

A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentation techniques

AIM: The aim of the present review was to systematically assess the dental literature in terms of soft tissue grafting techniques. The focused question was: is one method superior over others for augmentation and stability of the augmented soft tissue in terms of increasing the width of keratinized tissue (part 1) and gain in soft tissue volume (part 2). METHODS: A Medline search was performed for human studies focusing on augmentation of keratinized tissue and/or soft tissue volume, and complemented by additional hand searching. Relevant studies were identified and statistical results were reported for meta-analyses including the test minus control weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, the I-squared statistic for tests of heterogeneity, and the number of significant studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five (part 1) and three (part 2) studies met the inclusion criteria; 14 studies (part 1) were eligible for comparison using meta-analyses. An apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) procedure resulted in a statistically significantly greater gain in keratinized tissue than untreated controls. APF/V plus autogenous tissue revealed statistically significantly more attached gingiva compared with untreated controls and a borderline statistical significance compared with APF/V plus allogenic tissue. Statistically significantly more shrinkage was observed for the APF/V plus allogenic graft compared with the APF/V plus autogenous tissue. Patient-centered outcomes did not reveal any of the treatment methods to be superior regarding postoperative complications. The three studies reporting on soft tissue volume augmentation could not be compared due to lack of homogeneity. The use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) resulted in statistically significantly more soft tissue volume gain compared with free gingival grafts (FGGs). CONCLUSIONS: APF/V is a successful treatment concept to increase the width of keratinized tissue or attached gingiva around teeth. The addition of autogenous tissue statistically significantly increases the width of attached gingiva. For soft tissue volume augmentation, only limited data are available favoring SCTGs over FGG.

A systematic review of the performance of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications associated with ceramic abutments and to compare them with those of metal abutments. METHODS: An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized-controlled clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective studies providing information on ceramic and metal abutments with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction was performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using standard and random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year survival proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine clinical and 22 laboratory studies were selected from an initial yield of 7136 titles and data were extracted. The estimated 5-year survival rate of ceramic abutments was 99.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 93.8-99.9%] and 97.4% (95% CI: 96-98.3%) for metal abutments. The estimated cumulative incidence of technical complications after 5 years was 6.9% (95% CI: 3.5-13.4%) for ceramic abutments and 15.9% (95% CI: 11.6-21.5%) for metal abutments. Abutment screw loosening was the most frequent technical problem, occurring at an estimated cumulative incidence after 5 years of 5.1% (95% CI: 3.3-7.7%). All-ceramic crowns supported by ceramic abutments exhibited similar annual fracture rates as metal-ceramic crowns supported by metal abutments. The cumulative incidence of biological complications after 5 years was estimated at 5.2% (95% CI: 0.4-52%) for ceramic and 7.7% (95% CI: 4.7-12.5%) for metal abutments. Esthetic complications tended to be more frequent at metal abutments. A meta-analysis of the laboratory data was impossible due to the non-standardized test methods of the studies included. CONCLUSION: The 5-year survival rates estimated from annual failure rates appeared to be similar for ceramic and metal abutments. The information included in this review did not provide evidence for differences of the technical and biological outcomes of ceramic and metal abutments. However, the information for ceramic abutments was limited in the number of studies and abutments analyzed as well as the accrued follow-up time. Standardized methods for the analysis of abutment strength are needed.

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the survival rates of short-span implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses (ICFDPs) and the incidence of technical and biological complications after an observation period of at least 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting data of at least 5 years on ICFDPs. Five- and 10-year estimates for failure and complication rates were calculated using standard or random-effect Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: The five studies eligible for the meta-analysis yielded an estimated 5- and 10-year ICFDP cumulative survival rate of 94.3% [95 percent confidence interval (95% CI): 84.1-98%] and 88.9% (95% CI: 70.8-96.1%), respectively. Five-year estimates for peri-implantitis were 5.4% (95% CI: 2-14.2%) and 9.4% (95% CI: 3.3-25.4%) at implant and prosthesis levels, respectively. Veneer fracture (5-year estimate: 10.3%; 95% CI: 3.9-26.6%) and screw loosening (5-year estimate: 8.2%; 95% CI: 3.9-17%) represented the most common complications, followed by loss of retention (5-year estimate: 5.7%; 95% CI: 1.9-16.5%) and abutment/screw fracture (5-year estimate: 2.1%; 95% CI: 0.9-5.1%). Implant fracture was rare (5-year estimate: 1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2-8.3%); no framework fracture was reported. Radiographic bone level changes did not yield statistically significant differences either at the prosthesis or at the implant levels when comparing ICFDPs with short-span implant-supported end-abutment fixed dental prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: ICFDPs represent a valid treatment modality; no detrimental effects can be expected on bone levels due to the presence of a cantilever extension per se.

Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether systemic diseases with/without systemic medication increase the risk of implant failure and therefore diminish success and survival rates of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE search was undertaken to find human studies reporting implant survival in subjects treated with osseointegrated dental implants who were diagnosed with at least one of 12 systemic diseases. RESULTS: For most conditions, no studies comparing patients with and without the condition in a controlled setting were found. For most systemic diseases there are only case reports or case series demonstrating that implant placement, integration, and function are possible in affected patients. For diabetes, heterogeneity of the material and the method of reporting data precluded a formal meta-analysis. No unequivocal tendency for subjects with diabetes to have higher failure rates emerged. The data from papers reporting on osteoporotic patients were also heterogeneous. The evidence for an association between osteoporosis and implant failure was low. Nevertheless, some reports now tend to focus on the medication used in osteoporotic patients, with oral bisphosphonates considered a potential risk factor for osteonecrosis of the jaws, rather than osteoporosis as a risk factor for implant success and survival on its own. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence indicative of absolute and relative contraindications for implant therapy due to systemic diseases is low. Studies comparing patients with and without the condition in a controlled setting are sparse. Especially for patients with manifest osteoporosis under an oral regime of bisphosphonates, prospective controlled studies are urgently needed.