scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Clovis Mariano Faggion

Other affiliations: University of Leeds
Bio: Clovis Mariano Faggion is an academic researcher from University of Münster. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Cochrane Library. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 63 publications receiving 946 citations. Previous affiliations of Clovis Mariano Faggion include University of Leeds.

Papers published on a yearly basis

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets are assessed.
Abstract: Background Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Objectives To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). 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. A number of journals were also handsearched. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation. Data collection and analysis We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Main results We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P Authors' conclusions ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.

114 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A prognostic model was constructed that provides estimates of tooth survival probability when periodontal therapy is rendered that may be of value for clinical decision making.
Abstract: Background: In patients with periodontitis, a quantitative prognostic assessment is needed in order to make evidence-based decisions about retaining teeth or extracting and replacing them with a dental prosthesis. Methods: One hundred and ninety eight patients receiving active periodontal treatment in 1989 or 1990 and complying with supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) over an average of 11.8±2.3 years were included in the study. A generalized linear model was established and fitted via generalized estimating equations to identify predictors for tooth loss during SPT. Results: Of the 4559 teeth present at baseline, 166 (3.6%) were extracted during active treatment and 249 (5.5%) during SPT. Baseline findings of diabetes mellitus (OR=4.17), reduced alveolar bone levels (OR=1.04 for each 1% increment), increased tooth mobility (III versus 0: OR=5.52), multiple roots (OR=1.82), and non-vital pulp (OR=2.24) were significant (p<0.05) predictors for tooth loss during SPT. Based on these parameters, a prognostic model was constructed that provides estimates of tooth survival probability when periodontal therapy is rendered. Conclusion: Using a multivariate approach, a prognostic model was developed that may be of value for clinical decision making.

113 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The data indicated that GPAP results in less gingival erosion than SBAP or hand instrumentation, further supporting the safety of this new debridement technique.
Abstract: Objectives: Safety and efficacy of glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) in removing subgingival biofilm have been previously demonstrated. The hypothesis that GPAP results in less gingival erosion than sodium bicarbonate air-polishing (SBAP) or hand-instrumentation was assessed. Material and Methods: In each of 10 patients, eight teeth with a residual probing depth of at least 5 mm following initial periodontal therapy were randomly assigned to the following interventions: GPAP (test), SBAP (positive control), hand-instrumentation (positive control), or no treatment (negative control). In each group, gingival biopsies were taken immediately after instrumentation and one 14 days later. Damaged gingival epithelium (GE) was assessed by light microscopy and quantified by a histological score (values 1–4). Differences between groups were evaluated using the marginal homogeneity test. Results: GPAP resulted in minor erosions of the GE (scores 1 and 2), whereas positive control specimens displayed moderate to severe erosions (scores 2–4). Differences between GPAP and positive controls were significant (p<0.05). Fourteen days following instrumentation GE under assessment was found to be intact in all groups. Conclusion: The data indicated that GPAP results in less gingival erosion than SBAP or hand instrumentation, further supporting the safety of this new debridement technique.

96 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evaluated and discussed some methodological limitations of the AMSTAR checklist, as well as challenges involved in evaluation of the checklist’s items, and suggested suggestions to optimize the use of this checklist.
Abstract: Systematic reviews are pivotal components in the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines. To evaluate the methodological quality of these systematic reviews, several tools have been proposed. Among them, the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist is probably used most frequently. This tool comprises 11 items related to the steps taken when conducting a systematic review, and it is claimed to have good face and content validity. The objective of this debate paper was twofold: (a) to critically evaluate the ability of all AMSTAR checklist items to adequately determine the methodological quality of a systematic review; and (b) to describe difficulties regarding interpretation of the checklist, and provide potential solutions for these difficulties. Some items of the AMSTAR checklist seem to assess the quality of reporting of a systematic review more than its methodological quality. For example, item 7 may not “capture” the true methodological quality of primary studies included in the systematic review. Item 10 does not likely result in the collection of in-depth information on the presence of publication bias in the systematic review. Furthermore, some items may be difficult to interpret, hindering accurate assessment. For example, item 5 does not explicitly indicate whether a list of documents excluded in each phase of selection (i.e., after evaluation of titles and abstracts, and after full-text assessment) should be reported. The present debate paper evaluated and discussed some methodological limitations of the AMSTAR checklist, as well as challenges involved in evaluation of the checklist’s items. Several suggestions are also made to optimize the use of this checklist. The information in this paper may stimulate further discussion among systematic reviewers, methodologists and clinicians.

82 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: On the basis of currently available RCTs, there is insufficient evidence to support that any particular non-surgical treatment for peri-implantitis showed better performance than debridement alone.
Abstract: Background/Aim It remains unclear which type of non-surgical treatment is most appropriate as first-line intervention against peri-implantitis. This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical effect of various non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies. Methods The PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, DARE and Web of Knowledge databases were searched in duplicate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to and including 01 January 2014. Additional relevant literature was identified using handsearching of reference lists within published systematic reviews, and screenings of OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov and Controlled-Trials.com. Probing pocket depth (PPD) was the outcome measure assessed. Multilevel mixed modelling was used to perform the network meta-analysis, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to obtain random effects. Results Eleven studies were included in the network meta-analysis. Debridement in conjunction with antibiotics achieved the greatest additional PPD reduction in comparison to debridement only (0.490 mm; 95% credible interval: −0.647;1.252). The highest probabilities of being the most effective interventions were achieved by Vector system (p = 20.60%), debridement plus periochip (p = 20.00%) and photodynamic therapy (p = 18.90%). Conclusion The differences between various non-surgical treatments were relatively small with large credible intervals. On the basis of currently available RCTs, there is insufficient evidence to support that any particular non-surgical treatment for peri-implantitis showed better performance than debridement alone.

77 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
21 Sep 2017-BMJ
TL;DR: This paper reports on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.
Abstract: The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

4,208 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
29 Mar 2021-BMJ
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA 2020) as mentioned in this paper was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and has been updated to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology.
Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

2,217 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

[...]

01 Dec 2007-BMJ

1,096 citations