Paul Coulthard

Bio: Paul Coulthard is an academic researcher from Queen Mary University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sedation & Analgesic. The author has an hindex of 41, co-authored 191 publications receiving 6572 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Coulthard include University of Gothenburg & Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The efficacy of various bone augmentation procedures for dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Abstract: PURPOSE To test (a) whether and when bone augmentation procedures are necessary and (b) which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into 3 categories: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation (or both); (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS An exhaustive search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on October 1, 2005. RESULTS Thirteen RCTs of 30 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 332 patients were suitable for inclusion. Six trials evaluated techniques for vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation. Four trials evaluated techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets, and 3 trials evaluated techniques to treat fenestrated implants. CONCLUSIONS Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration procedures and distraction osteogenesis can be used to augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures are needed at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets; however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin than sites treated with barriers alone. More bone was regenerated around fenestrated implants with nonresorbable barriers than without barriers; however, it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss, but there was no reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of other active agents, such as platelet-rich plasma, in conjunction with implant treatment.

The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants ? A Cochrane systematic review.

Abstract: Some patients may have insufficient bone to place dental implants, but there are many sur­gical techniques to increase the bone volume making implant treatment possible. Short implants appear to be more effective and cause fewer complications than conventional implants placed in resorbed lower jaws augmented with autogenous bone or bone substitutes (cow bone blocks). Bone can be regenerated in a horizontal and vertical direction using various techniques, but it is unclear which techniques are preferable. Complications especially for augmenting bone vertically are frequent. Some bone substitutes may cause less complications and pain than autogenous bone. Osteodistraction osteogenesis allows for more vertical bone augmentation than other techniques, which, on the other hand, can allow for horizontal augmentation at the same time. This review is based on a Cochrane systematic review entitled “Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone ­augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment” published in The Cochrane Library (see www.cochrane.org for information). Cochrane systematic reviews are regularly updated to include new research and in response to comments and criticisms from readers. If you wish to comment on this review, please send your ­comments to the Cochrane website or to Marco Esposito. The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. The results of a Cochrane Review can be interpreted differently, depending on people’s perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of the review authors, and are not necessarily shared by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Dentistry and coronavirus (COVID-19) - moral decision-making.

Abstract: The coronavirus (COVID-19) has challenged health professions and systems and has evoked different speeds of reaction and types of response around the world. The role of dental professionals in preventing the transmission of COVID-19 is critically important. While all routine dental care has been suspended in countries experiencing COVID-19 disease during the period of pandemic, the need for organised urgent care delivered by teams provided with appropriate personal protective equipment takes priority. Dental professionals can also contribute to medical care. Major and rapid reorganisation of both clinical and support services is not straightforward. Dental professionals felt a moral duty to reduce routine care for fear of spreading COVID-19 among their patients and beyond, but were understandably concerned about the financial consequences. Amidst the explosion of information available online and through social media, it is difficult to identify reliable research evidence and guidance, but moral decisions must be made.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

Abstract: Background Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development. Objectives To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: February 2009. Selection criteria RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years. Data collection and analysis Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed. Main results Thirteen trials were included out of 35 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including nine trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.1 mm, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55) and PPD reduction (0.9 mm, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.82). Approximately nine patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 25%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating only trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis (four trials), the effect size for PAL was 0.62 mm (95% CI 0.28 to 0.96), which was less than 1.1 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed statistically significant more postoperative complications (three trials, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.85) and more REC (0.4 mm 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66). The only trial comparing EMD with a bioactive ceramic filler found statistically significant more REC (-1.60 mm, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.46) at the EMG treated sites. Authors' conclusions One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.1 mm) and PPD reduction (0.9 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD. Bone substitutes may be associated with less REC than EMD.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

Abstract: Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined. Methods and Findings We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained. Data were collected using a 51-item data collection form designed to assess the epidemiological and reporting details and the bias-related aspects of the reviews. The data were analyzed descriptively. In total 300 SRs were identified, suggesting a current annual publication rate of about 2,500, involving more than 33,700 separate studies including one-third of a million participants. The majority (272 [90.7%]) of SRs were reported in specialty journals. Most reviews (213 [71.0%]) were categorized as therapeutic, and included a median of 16 studies involving 1,112 participants. Funding sources were not reported in more than one-third (122 [40.7%]) of the reviews. Reviews typically searched a median of three electronic databases and two other sources, although only about two-thirds (208 [69.3%]) of them reported the years searched. Most (197/295 [66.8%]) reviews reported information about quality assessment, while few (68/294 [23.1%]) reported assessing for publication bias. A little over half (161/300 [53.7%]) of the SRs reported combining their results statistically, of which most (147/161 [91.3%]) assessed for consistency across studies. Few (53 [17.7%]) SRs reported being updates of previously completed reviews. No review had a registration number. Only half (150 [50.0%]) of the reviews used the term “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” in the title or abstract. There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics. Conclusions SRs are now produced in large numbers, and our data suggest that the quality of their reporting is inconsistent. This situation might be improved if more widely agreed upon evidence-based reporting guidelines were endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals. These results substantiate the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically.

Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

Abstract: Background and Purpose: The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is commonly evaluated in order to assess the risk of biased estimates of treatment effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify scales used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs in health care research and summarize the content, construction, development, and psychometric properties of these scales. Methods: Extensive electronic database searches, along with a manual search, were performed. Results: One hundred five relevant studies were identified. They accounted for 21 scales and their modifications. The majority of scales had not been rigorously developed or tested for validity and reliability. The Jadad Scale presented the best validity and reliability evidence; however, its validity for physical therapy trials has not been supported. Discussion and Conclusion: Many scales are used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs, but most of these scales have not been adequately developed and have not been adequately tested for validity and reliability. A valid and reliable scale for the assessment of the methodological quality of physical therapy trials needs to be developed.

A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation

Abstract: Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the survival rate of implants placed in sites with transalveolar sinus floor elevation. Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on transalveolar sinus floor elevation, with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year after functional loading. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates/ year proportions. Results: The search provided 849 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 176 articles, resulting in 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated an estimated annual failure rate of 2.48% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.37‐4.49%) translating to an estimated survival rate of 92.8% (95% CI): 87.4‐96.0%) for implants placed in transalveolarly augmented sinuses, after 3 years in function. Furthermore, subject-based analysis revealed an estimated annual failure of 3.71% (95% CI: 1.21‐11.38%), translating to 10.5% (95% CI: 3.6‐28.9%) of the subjects experiencing implant loss over 3 years. Conclusion: Survival rates of implants placed in transalveolar sinus floor augmentation sites are comparable to those in non-augmented sites. This technique is predictable with a low incidence of complications during and post-operatively.