Evaluating the effectiveness of advanced platelet-rich fibrin, photobiomodulation, pentoxifylline, and Alveogyl in the treatment of alveolar osteitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Alveolar osteitis is a type of small-scale osteomyelitis of the alveolar bone that occurs after tooth extraction, the etiology of which remains unknown, and alternative methods are being investigated for its treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF), photobiomodulation (PBM), and Alveogyl (butamben, idoform, eugenol), which have shown success in the treatment of alveolar osteitis, with that of pentoxifylline (PTX) to determine whether PTX could be an alternative treatment for alveolar osteitis.
This study included 80 healthy volunteers diagnosed with alveolar osteitis in the extraction sockets of their mandibular first, second, and third molars. The patients were divided into four groups, with 20 patients in each group: A-PRF, PBM, PTX, and Alveogyl. After physiological saline irrigation, the patients were treated according to their respective group. The patients were followed up on the 2nd, 4th, 7th, and 14th days. Primary outcomes included pain assessment and the evaluation of soft tissue healing. Pain was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS), soft tissue healing was evaluated via the Landry Healing Index (LHI), and granulation tissue was measured. Age and sex were used as study variables. The data were analyzed via ANOVA and post hoc tests to compare the treatment groups.
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean VAS score between the groups (p > 0.05). However, the degree of reduction in the VAS score increased in the following order: A-PRF, PBM, PTX, and Alveogyl. In the LHI data, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores between the groups, with Alveogyl being favored preoperatively and PBM being favored at the 2nd week (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were observed in granulation tissue measurements on the preoperative day, as well as on Days 4 and 7, in favor of Alveogyl on Day 4 and PBM on Day 7 (p < 0.05). The greatest increase in granulation tissue scores was observed in the A-PRF group, whereas the greatest change in LHI scores was observed in the PBM group. PTX did not produce a statistically significant difference in soft tissue healing, although there were periods when it showed results similar to those of Alveogyl and PBM. There were significant differences between the VAS score, granulation tissue score and LHI score in terms of age and sex within the time periods followed.
The findings of this study indicate that although PTX has similar efficacy in terms of wound healing and analgesic properties to the methods used, it does not offer significant advantages. Compared with other methods, A-PRF and PBM have provided better results in the treatment of alveolar osteitis, particularly regarding pain and soft tissue healing.
The study was retrospectively registered in the clinical trial registry with the number TCTR20231014003 on 14.10.2023.
Yuzbasioglu A
，Eroglu CN
《BMC Oral Health》
Comparison of electronic apex locator and simultaneous working length detection methods with radiological method in terms of postoperative pain.
Precise knowledge of the apical construction, which determines the end of the area for canal preparation and filling, is essential for the success of root canal treatment and the management of postoperative pain. For this purpose, devices based on various methods that determine the working length (WL) are used. However, it is still controversial which method provides the most accurate measurements.
To investigate the compatibility of the electronic apex locator (EWL) and simultaneous working length determination (SWL) methods in single-root teeth in comparison with the radiographic working length determination (RWL) method and to determine which one produced more effective results in terms of postoperative pain.
One hundred patients scheduled for root canal treatment (RCT) were randomly assigned to one of the three groups according to the working length measurement method (EWL, SWL or RWL). After WL determination with assigned method, root canals were prepared and then obturated. Age, gender, simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S), oral and dental examinations and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) results of all participants were recorded. The incidence and intensity of postoperative pain were rated on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by patients 6, 12, 24, 48 h and 7 days after RCT. The number of analgesic tablets (400 mg Ibuprofen) taken by patients was also recorded. Data were analyzed using the chi-square, One- way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablock regression analysis were used as method comparison techniques.
It was determined that the number of patients receiving analgesia and the total number of analgesia doses were higher in EWL and RWL groups compared to SWL group (p < 0.0001). When the WL values at which the treatment was applied were compared in the patient groups; WL values of EWL group were statistically lower than SWL group (p < 0.01). While there was no difference between the preoperative VAS scores of the groups (p = 0.7590), the postoperative 6th and 12th hour VAS scores of SWL group were lower than those of EWL and RWL groups (p = 0.005 and p = 0.0002, respectively). Again, the VAS scores of SWL group at the 24th and 48th postoperative hours were lower than those of RWL group (p < 0.05). According to the Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablock regression analysis results, although there was no statistically significant difference between the EWL and SWL methods (p = 0.471), the bias value of -0.1190 was well below the acceptable total error (0.1648). Additionally, a strong relationship was found between EWL and SWL methods (r = 0.9698, r2 = 0.9406, p < 0.001). Therefore, statistically these two methods were considered compatible with each other. It was determined that there was a statistically significant bias (0.340, p < 0.0001) between the RWL and SWL methods, exceeding the total error.
As a result, it was determined that the SWL method, which is used to determine working length for the success of endodontic treatment, can be used as an alternative to the EWL method thus producing more effective results in the management of postoperative pain. However, in addition to the method used, the technology of the device developed for this method should not be ignored.
Precise knowledge of the apical construction, which determines the end of the area for canal preparation and filling, is essential for the success of root canal treatment and the management of postoperative pain. For this purpose, devices based on various methods that determine the working length are used. However, it is still controversial which method provides the most accurate measurements. This study found that the simultaneous working length determination method can be used as an alternative to the electronic working length determination method and produces more effective results in the management of postoperative pain. Another important outcome of this study is that the Total Allowable Error (TEa) for the electronic apex locator method, which is accepted as the reference, has been calculated for the first time. Other methods have been evaluated according to this reference method. This is a first in literature.
Guzel E
，Uyan M
，Ersahan S
，Gundogar M
，Ozcelik F
... -
《BMC Oral Health》
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads.
French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting. Depending on their clinical presentation, azithromycin was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and cases refusing the protocol were included as negative controls. Presence and absence of virus at Day6-post inclusion was considered the end point.
Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination.
Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Concerns have been raised regarding this article, the substance of which relate to the articles' adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions. Elsevier's Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Team, in collaboration with the journal's co-owner, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC), and with guidance from an impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, Dr. Jim Gray, Consultant Microbiologist at the Birmingham Children's and Women's Hospitals, U.K., conducted an investigation and determined that the below points constituted cause for retraction: • The journal has been unable to confirm whether any of the patients for this study were accrued before ethical approval had been obtained. The ethical approval dates for this article are stated as being 5th and 6th of March 2020 (ANSM and CPP respectively), while the article states that recruitment began in “early March”. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui, has confirmed that the start date for patient accrual was 6th March 2020. The journal has not been able to establish whether all patients could have entered into the study in time for the data to have been analysed and included in the manuscript prior to its submission on the 20th March 2020, nor whether all patients were enrolled in the study upon admission as opposed to having been hospitalised for some time before starting the treatment described in the article. Additionally, the journal has not been able to establish whether there was equipoise between the study patients and the control patients. • The journal has not been able to establish whether the subjects in this study should have provided informed consent to receive azithromycin as part of the study. The journal has concluded that that there is reasonable cause to conclude that azithromycin was not considered standard care at the time of the study. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that azithromycin treatment was not, at the time of the study, an experimental treatment but a possible treatment for, or preventative measure against, bacterial superinfections of viral pneumonia as described in section 2.4 of the article, and as such the treatment should be categorised as standard care that would not require informed consent. This does not fully address the journal's concerns around the use of azithromycin in the study. In section 3.1 of the article, it is stated that six patients received azithromycin to prevent (rather than treat) bacterial superinfection. All of these were amongst the patients who also received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). None of the control patients are reported to have received azithromycin. This would indicate that only patients in the HCQ arm received azithromycin, all of whom were in one center. The recommendations for use of macrolides in France at the time the study was conducted indicate that azithromycin would not have been a logical agent to use as first-line prophylaxis against pneumonia due to the frequency of macrolide resistance amongst bacteria such as pneumococci. These two points suggest that azithromycin would not have been standard practice across southern France at the time the study was conducted and would have required informed consent. • Three of the authors of this article, Dr. Johan Courjon, Prof. Valérie Giordanengo, and Dr. Stéphane Honoré have contacted the journal to assert their opinion that they have concerns regarding the presentation and interpretation of results in this article and have stated they no longer wish to see their names associated with the article. • Author Prof. Valérie Giordanengo informed the journal that while the PCR tests administered in Nice were interpreted according to the recommendations of the national reference center, it is believed that those carried out in Marseille were not conducted using the same technique or not interpreted according to the same recommendations, which in her opinion would have resulted in a bias in the analysis of the data. This raises concerns as to whether the study was partially conducted counter to national guidelines at that time. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that the PCR methodology was explained in reference 17 of the article. However, the article referred to by reference 17 describes several diagnostic approaches that were used (one PCR targeting the envelope protein only; another targeting the spike protein; and three commercially produced systems by QuantiNova, Biofire, and FTD). This reference does not clarify how the results were interpreted. It has also been noted during investigation of these concerns that only 76% (19/25) of patients were viral culture positive, resulting in uncertainty in the interpretation of PCR reports as has been raised by Prof. Giordanengo. As part of the investigation, the corresponding author was contacted and asked to provide an explanation for the above concerns. No response has been received within the deadline provided by the journal. Responses were received by the 3rd and 17th authors, Prof. Philippe Parola and Prof. Philippe Brouqui, respectively, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. These two authors, in addition to 1st author Dr. Philippe Gautret, 13th author Prof. Philippe Colson, and 15th author Prof. Bernard La Scola, disagreed with the retraction and dispute the grounds for it. Having followed due process and concluded the aforementioned investigation and based on the recommendation of Dr. Jim Gray acting in his capacity as independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, the co-owners of the journal (Elsevier and ISAC) have therefore taken the decision to retract the article.
Gautret P
，Lagier JC
，Parola P
，Hoang VT
，Meddeb L
，Mailhe M
，Doudier B
，Courjon J
，Giordanengo V
，Vieira VE
，Tissot Dupont H
，Honoré S
，Colson P
，Chabrière E
，La Scola B
，Rolain JM
，Brouqui P
，Raoult D
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
