Search

A double-blind controlled trial initiated in 1944 has led to the common narrative that a 10-mg daily vitamin C intake is adequate to prevent and treat impaired wound healing, and by inference, other collagen-related diseases such as heart disease or stroke. The WHO relies on this narrative to set the recommended nutrient intake for vitamin C. This narrative, however, is based on what is known as the eyeball method of data assessment. The 1944 trial published individual participant data on scar strength providing an opportunity to statistically probe the validity of the 10-mg narrative, something which has not yet been done. The findings show that a vitamin C intake that averages to 10 mg/d over a mean follow-up of 11.5 mo was associated with a 42% weakened scar strength when compared with 80 mg vitamin C intake/d (P < 0.001). The observed dose-response curve between scar strength and vitamin C intake suggests that the daily vitamin C intake needed to prevent collagen-related pathologies is in the range recommended by the National Academy of Medicine and the European Food Safety Authority (75 to 110 mg/d), not the WHO recommendation (45 mg/d). The findings also show that a vitamin C intake that averages to 65 mg/d over a mean follow-up of 6.5 mo failed to restore the normal wound-healing capacity of vitamin C-depleted tissues; such tissues had a 49% weaker scar strength when compared with nondepleted tissues (P < 0.05). Thus, average daily vitamin C intakes ∼50% higher than the WHO recommends may fail to treat existing collagen-related pathologies. It is concluded that the prior lack of statistical analyses of a landmark trial may have led to a misleading narrative on the vitamin C needs for the prevention and treatment of collagen-related pathologies., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.)

Background: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts., Methods: A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs conducted a search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase for randomized controlled trials of SRP with or without the use of adjuncts with clinical attachment level (CAL) outcomes in trials at least 6 months in duration and published in English through July 2014. The authors assessed individual study bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and conducted meta-analyses to obtain the summary effect estimates and their precision and to assess heterogeneity. The authors used funnel plots and Egger tests to assess publication bias when there were more than 10 studies. The authors used a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force methods to assess the overall level of certainty in the evidence., Results: The panel included 72 articles on the effectiveness of SRP with or without the following: systemic antimicrobials, a systemic host modulator (subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline), locally delivered antimicrobials (chlorhexidine chips, doxycycline hyclate gel, and minocycline microspheres), and a variety of nonsurgical lasers (photodynamic therapy with a diode laser, a diode laser, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers, and erbium lasers)., Conclusions and Practical Implications: With a moderate level of certainty, the panel found approximately a 0.5-millimeter average improvement in CAL with SRP. Combinations of SRP with assorted adjuncts resulted in a range of average CAL improvements between 0.2 and 0.6 mm over SRP alone. The panel judged the following 4 adjunctive therapies as beneficial with a moderate level of certainty: systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline, systemic antimicrobials, chlorhexidine chips, and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. There was a low level of certainty in the benefits of the other included adjunctive therapies. The panel provides clinical recommendations in the associated clinical practice guideline., (Copyright © 2015 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs presents an evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts., Methods: The authors developed this clinical practice guideline according to the American Dental Association's evidence-based guideline development methodology. This guideline is founded on a systematic review of the evidence that included 72 research articles providing clinical attachment level data on trials of at least 6 months' duration and published in English through July 2014. The strength of each recommendation (strong, in favor, weak, expert opinion for, expert opinion against, and against) is based on an assessment of the level of certainty in the evidence for the treatment's benefit in combination with an assessment of the balance between the magnitude of the benefit and the potential for adverse effects., Practical Implications and Conclusions: For patients with chronic periodontitis, SRP showed a moderate benefit, and the benefits were judged to outweigh potential adverse effects. The authors voted in favor of SRP as the initial nonsurgical treatment for chronic periodontitis. Although systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and systemic antimicrobials showed similar magnitudes of benefits as adjunctive therapies to SRP, they were recommended at different strengths (in favor for systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and weak for systemic antimicrobials) because of the higher potential for adverse effects with higher doses of antimicrobials. The strengths of 2 other recommendations are weak: chlorhexidine chips and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. Recommendations for the other local antimicrobials (doxycycline hyclate gel and minocycline microspheres) were expert opinion for. Recommendations for the nonsurgical use of other lasers as SRP adjuncts were limited to expert opinion against because there was uncertainty regarding their clinical benefits and benefit-to-adverse effects balance. Note that expert opinion for does not imply endorsement but instead signifies that evidence is lacking and the level of certainty in the evidence is low., (Copyright © 2015 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs presents evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding professionally applied and prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents for caries prevention. These recommendations are an update of the 2006 ADA recommendations regarding professionally applied topical fluoride and were developed by using a new process that includes conducting a systematic review of primary studies., Types of Studies Reviewed: The authors conducted a search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials of professionally applied and prescription-strength topical fluoride agents--including mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, foams and pastes--with caries increment outcomes published in English through October 2012., Results: The panel included 71 trials from 82 articles in its review and assessed the efficacy of various topical fluoride caries-preventive agents. The panel makes recommendations for further research., Practical Implications: The panel recommends the following for people at risk of developing dental caries: 2.26 percent fluoride varnish or 1.23 percent fluoride (acidulated phosphate fluoride) gel, or a prescription-strength, home-use 0.05 percent fluoride gel or paste or 0.09 percent fluoride mouthrinse for patients 6 years or older. Only 2.26 percent fluoride varnish is recommended for children younger than 6 years. The strengths of the recommendations for the recommended products varied from "in favor" to "expert opinion for." As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences.

Background: and Overview. Observational investigations provide an opportunity to document the distribution of diseases in various populations and to explore correlations between exposures and outcomes. Interpreting such correlations as causal is challenging and can lead to more harm than good when used as a basis for advising lifestyle changes or interventions to healthy people. The aim of this review is to provide a brief introduction to observational study designs and describe some of their strengths and weaknesses., Conclusions and Practice Implications: Observational findings can be useful to guide clinical research, but often they do not provide a reliable basis for clinical decision making. Caution in applying observational findings to clinical practice is particularly important when caring for healthy people.

Background: In this article, the authors present evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding the use of nonfluoride caries preventive agents. The recommendations were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA)Council on Scientific Affairs. The panel addressed several questions regarding the efficacy of nonfluoride agents in reducing the incidence of caries and arresting or reversing the progression of caries., Types of Studies Reviewed: A panel of experts convened by the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, in collaboration with ADA Division of Science staff, conducted a MEDLINE search to identify all randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies regarding the use of non fluoride caries-preventive agents., Results: The panel reviewed evidence from 50 randomized controlled trials and 15 nonrandomized studies to assess the efficacy of various nonfluoride caries-preventive agents., Clinical Implications: The panel concluded that certain nonfluoride agents may provide some benefit as adjunctive therapies in children and adults at higher risk of developing caries. These recommendations are presented as a resource for dentists to consider in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner’s professional judgment and the patient’s needs and preferences.

Background: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding the intake of fluoride from reconstituted infant formula and its potential association with enamel fluorosis. The recommendations were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA). The panel addressed the following question: Is consumption of infant formula reconstituted with water that contains various concentrations of fluoride by infants from birth to age 12 months associated with an increased risk of developing enamel fluorosis in the permanent dentition?, Types of Studies Reviewed: A panel of experts convened by the ADA CSA, in collaboration with staff of the ADA Center for Evidence-based Dentistry (CEBD), conducted a MEDLINE search to identify systematic reviews and clinical studies published since the systematic reviews were conducted that addressed the review question., Results: CEBD staff identified one systematic review and two clinical studies. The panel reviewed this evidence to develop recommendations., Clinical Implications: The panel suggested that when dentists advise parents and caregivers of infants who consume powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula as the main source of nutrition, they can suggest the continued use of powdered or liquid concentrate infant formulas reconstituted with optimally fluoridated drinking water while being cognizant of the potential risks of enamel fluorosis development. These recommendations are presented as a resource to be considered in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences.

Background: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations developed by a panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. This report addresses the potential benefits and potential risks of screening for oral squamous cell carcinomas and the use of adjunctive screening aids to visualize and detect potentially malignant and malignant oral lesions., Types of Studies Reviewed: The panel members conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, identifying 332 systematic reviews and 1,499 recent clinical studies. They selected five systematic reviews and four clinical studies to use as a basis for developing recommendations., Results: The panel concluded that screening by means of visual and tactile examination to detect potentially malignant and malignant lesions may result in detection of oral cancers at early stages of development, but that there is insufficient evidence to determine if screening alters disease-specific mortality in asymptomatic people seeking dental care., Clinical Implications: The panel suggested that clinicians remain alert for signs of potentially malignant lesions or early-stage cancers while performing routine visual and tactile examinations in all patients, but particularly in those who use tobacco or who consume alcohol heavily. Additional research regarding oral cancer screening and the use of adjuncts is needed.

Background: Researchers have considered infant formula consumption a potential risk factor for enamel fluorosis in the U.S. population. The authors conducted a systematic review of controlled studies regarding the risk of developing enamel fluorosis associated with use of infant formula., Methods: One reviewer independently conducted systematic searches in eight databases. The authors then abstracted information, assessed study quality and combined odds ratios (ORs), when obtainable, by using a random-effects model., Results: After evaluating 969 potentially eligible published studies, the reviewers found that the authors of 41 studies had evaluated the effect of infant formula on enamel fluorosis risk. Authors of 14 of the 41 studies did not report their findings in their results. The authors of the remaining 27 published studies reported the findings of 19 observational studies; authors of 17 of these 19 studies reported ORs and, among these, infant formula consumption was associated with a higher prevalence of enamel fluorosis in the permanent dentition (summary OR 1.8, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.3). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) 66 percent) and evidence of publication bias (P = .002). A metaregression analysis indicated that the ORs associating infant formula with enamel fluorosis increased by 5 percent for each 0.1-part-per-million increase in the reported levels of fluoride in the water supply (OR 1.05, 95 percent CI 1.02-1.09)., Clinical Implications: Infant formula consumption may be associated with an increased risk of developing at least some detectable level of enamel fluorosis, which depends on the level of fluoride in the water supply. The evidence that the fluoride in the infant formula caused enamel fluorosis was weak, as other mechanisms could explain the observed association.

Background: Orthodontic therapy has been suggested to lead to an improved periodontal status through mechanisms such as increased ease of plaque removal and reduced occlusal trauma. The objective of the authors' systematic review was to compare contemporary orthodontic treatment with no intervention, by means of evaluating periodontal outcomes measured after end of treatment., Methods: The authors completed electronic searches in eight databases (1980-2006) and hand searches in six dental journals (1980-2006). They extracted data using standardized forms and calculated weighted mean differences., Results: Weak evidence from one randomized study and 11 nonrandomized studies suggested that orthodontic therapy was associated with 0.03 millimeters of gingival recession (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.04), 0.13 mm of alveolar bone loss (95 percent CI, 0.07-0.20) and 0.23 mm of increased pocket depth (95 percent CI, 0.15-0.30) when compared with no treatment. The effects of orthodontic therapy on gingivitis and attachment loss were inconsistent across studies., Conclusions: This systematic review identified an absence of reliable evidence describing positive effects of orthodontic treatment on periodontal health. The existing evidence suggests that orthodontic therapy results in small detrimental effects to the periodontium.

Introduction: The goals of this study were to describe secular trends in preadult orthodontic care for people in the United States born between 1942 and 1972, and to estimate the number of new preadult orthodontic treatment starts in 2006., Methods: Orthodontic care experience in this group was ascertained by 2 questions in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III)., Results: Of those in the 1942 birth cohort, 4.6% (SE 1.5) and, of those in the 1972 birth cohort, 29.7% (SE 3.8) received preadult orthodontic care. These increasing secular trends were more pronounced for people of higher socioeconomic positions (P <.03) and girls (P = .04). If the orthodontic care prevalence continues to increase yearly by 0.7 percentage point (SE 0.08), there will be 1.62 million new preadult patient starts in 2006, an increase of 26,000 over 2005., Conclusions: The prevalence of preadult orthodontic care has steadily increased for successive birth cohorts between 1942 and 1972, particularly for girls and those at higher socioeconomic positions. Linear extrapolations extending to 2006 reasonably agree with survey data, suggesting linear growth in orthodontic treatment use by those born in the latter half of the 20th century.

Purpose: Periodontitis has been linked to the occurrence of various systemic diseases. The goal of this study was to explore the periodontitis-cancer association in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study., Methods: Data were available on 11,328 adults, age 25 to 74 years, who were diagnosed as dentate individuals with either periodontitis (n = 2092), gingivitis (n = 2603), a healthy periodontium (n = 2,671), or as individuals without teeth (edentulous n = 3,962) at the beginning of the follow-up. The main outcome measure was fatal cancer, as ascertained from death certificates., Results: Compared with individuals with a healthy periodontium, fatal cancer occurrence was positively associated with periodontitis at baseline (age and gender adjusted odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.92). Of the different cancer types, lung cancer demonstrated the strongest association. After adjustment for known risk factors for lung cancer, the magnitude of the association between periodontitis and lung cancer ranged between 1.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-2.50) and 1.73 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.97)., Conclusions: Associations between periodontitis and lung cancer mortality can be identified above and beyond adjustment for known risk factors for lung cancer. Despite these apparent unconfounded associations, there are reasons to believe that the periodontitis-cancer associations may be spurious.