Clinical Oral Investigations 

About: Clinical Oral Investigations is an academic journal published by Springer Nature. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Dentistry. It has an ISSN identifier of 1432-6981. Over the lifetime, 5320 publications have been published receiving 115019 citations.

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

Abstract: To comprehend the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through total transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by use of a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented here incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting this information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect, or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow- up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly shows the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have done an intention- to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Coronavirus COVID-19 impacts to dentistry and potential salivary diagnosis

Abstract: A novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is associated with humanto-human transmission. The COVID-19 was recently identified in saliva of infected patients. In this point-of-view article, we discuss the potential of transmission via the saliva of this virus. The COVID-19 transmission via contact with droplets and aerosols generated during dental clinical procedures is expected. There is a need to increase investigations to the detection of COVID-19 in oral fluids and its impact on the transmission of this virus, which is crucial to improve effective strategies for prevention, especially for dentists and healthcare professionals that perform aerosol-generating procedures. Saliva can have a pivotal role in the human-to-human transmission, and non-invasive salivary diagnostics may provide a convenient and cost-effective point-of-care platform for the fast and early detection of COVID-19 infection.

Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE): a new scoring system for scientific and clinical needs

Abstract: A new scoring system, the Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE), has been designed to provide a simple tool for use in general practice and to allow comparison to other more discriminative indices. The most severely affected surface in each sextant is recorded with a four level score and the cumulative score classified and matched to risk levels which guide the management of the condition. The BEWE allows re-analysis and integration of results from existing studies and, in time, should initiate a consensus within the scientific community and so avoid continued proliferation of indices. Finally, this process should lead to the development of an internationally accepted, standardised and validated index. The BEWE further aims to increase the awareness of tooth erosion amongst clinicians and general dental practitioners and to provide a guide as to its management.

Comparative release of growth factors from PRP, PRF, and advanced-PRF

Abstract: The use of platelet concentrates has gained increasing awareness in recent years for regenerative procedures in modern dentistry. The aim of the present study was to compare growth factor release over time from platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and a modernized protocol for PRF, advanced-PRF (A-PRF). Eighteen blood samples were collected from six donors (3 samples each for PRP, PRF, and A-PRF). Following preparation, samples were incubated in a plate shaker and assessed for growth factor release at 15 min, 60 min, 8 h, 1 day, 3 days, and 10 days. Thereafter, growth factor release of PDGF-AA, PDGF-AB, PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, EGF, and IGF was quantified using ELISA. The highest reported growth factor released from platelet concentrates was PDGF-AA followed by PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, and PDGF-AB. In general, following 15–60 min incubation, PRP released significantly higher growth factors when compared to PRF and A-PRF. At later time points up to 10 days, it was routinely found that A-PRF released the highest total growth factors. Furthermore, A-PRF released significantly higher total protein accumulated over a 10-day period when compared to PRP or PRF. The results from the present study indicate that the various platelet concentrates have quite different release kinetics. The advantage of PRP is the release of significantly higher proteins at earlier time points whereas PRF displayed a continual and steady release of growth factors over a 10-day period. Furthermore, in general, it was observed that the new formulation of PRF (A-PRF) released significantly higher total quantities of growth factors when compared to traditional PRF. Based on these findings, PRP can be recommended for fast delivery of growth factors whereas A-PRF is better-suited for long-term release.

Effectiveness of 2% Articaine as an anesthetic agent in children: randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2% articaine and 2% lignocaine in achieving adequate anesthesia in children between the age group of 6–13 years using inferior alveolar nerve block. A triple blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in 180 participants (90 patients- 2% articaine, 90 patients-2% lignocaine). Effectiveness of the anesthetic agent was determined at 3 points determined by subjective evaluation of pain using pain scales (FPS-R). Paired sample t-test and chi square test were performed for statistical significance. Anesthetic success for 2% articaine were 64.4%, 42.2% and 81.8% respectively. The anesthetic success of 2% lignocaine was 66.7%, 48.9% and 85.7% at point one, point two and point three respectively (p > 0.05). This study concludes that 2% articaine in 1:2,00,000 did not demonstrate superior clinical effectiveness in comparison to 2% lignocaine. Lignocaine has always been considered the gold standard. With its unique chemical structure and increased potency, Articaine has been gaining popularity. Its efficacy in 2% concentration had not been compared to 2% lignocaine. 2% articaine did not show clinical superiority but its comparable effectiveness with lignocaine can encourage further research in using articaine in reduced concentrations to improve effectiveness.