RESUMEN
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate to other treatments or placebo in the management of dentin hypersensitivity (DH). Materials and Methods: The present review was organized based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The search aimed to answer the following question: is cyanoacrylate effective in the treatment of DH when compared to other treatments or placebo? The following databases were used: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, BVS, Web of Science, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, Portal Periódicos Capes, Google Scholar, and manual search. The evaluation process started with the information collected from the selected articles according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Results: Two randomized and five nonrandomized clinical trials were analyzed in the qualitative synthesis. The studies presented different cyanoacrylate formulations, different scales for evaluating pain, and different methods for provoking a painful stimulus. Cyanoacrylate-based products reduce DH in shorter follow-up periods and this reduction persisted throughout the study. The results varied according to the methods used to stimulate the pain. Only two articles showed a low risk of bias and a high level of scientific evidence. Conclusion: Although there is a limited number of studies in the scientific literature with appropriate methodological quality, the available evidence proves the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate in the treatment of DH. Clinical Relevance. Cyanoacrylate is easy to access, effective, easily applicable, and a low-cost product with satisfactory results.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To critically evaluate the available literature and conduct a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of probiotics compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in enhancing periodontal health. Methods: Five databases were searched electronically, as well as the gray literature. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, the risk of bias was examined. The weighted mean difference (WMD) method was used to calculate the effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and τ 2 statistics. The GRADE approach was adopted to assess the certainty of the evidence. To assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were undertaken. Results: A total of 1850 studies were initially identified. Sixteen clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and ten were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of the gingival index, in total, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics within 4 weeks (WMD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09â¼0.04, P = 0.3885). Similar to GI, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics regarding the plaque index within 4 weeks (WMD 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05â¼0.28, P = 0.1726). No statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics in all time intervals regarding oral hygiene index-simplified (WMD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05â¼0.04, P = 0.7508). The robustness of these findings was confirmed by sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessments. Conclusions: Based on the findings, probiotics were an acceptable alternative to conventional chlorhexidine in improving periodontal health. High-quality studies with rigorous methodology should be conducted to assess the optimum doses of probiotics for clinical implications.