Search

Background/Aim: External inflammatory root resorption (EIRR) and external replacement root resorption (ERRR) are the most common adverse outcomes after luxation injuries or dental injuries. They are usually detected radiographically after considerable progression. It can be envisaged that evaluation of inflammatory mediators might serve as an objective and reliable method of predicting the risk of resorption. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding the risk of resorption and to provide future research directions. Methods: An a priori protocol was prepared by a multidisciplinary expert group, as per the Cochrane handbook and PRISMA guidelines. The systematic search was conducted in six databases and grey‐literature sources. Scrutiny of titles and abstracts, and later full‐text articles was performed, and data were extracted. Risk of bias analysis was done by using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross‐sectional and cohort studies. Results: Eight studies were included in the systematic review and could be categorized as per the source of biomarkers, namely epithelial cells from mucosa, gingival crevicular fluid and extracted teeth. The studies utilizing epithelial cells had been conducted between 2015 and 2018 in Brazil and did not find any correlation with EIRR. Two of the studies with extracted teeth found differences in the immunologic profiles of teeth with resorption. Three studies evaluating gingival crevicular fluid found increased levels of dentine sialoprotein and Interleukin‐1‐α. Conclusion: Among the three sources, the inflammatory gingival crevicular fluid appeared to be the most non‐invasive source of biomarkers for predicting trauma‐induced root resorption, although the evidence about this came from two studies with moderate and one study with high risk of bias. The primary studies in this systematic review showed variability in terms of the sample sizes, age of the patients, the grading/classification of trauma‐induced resorption and the evaluation methods which must be addressed by future researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Sports‐related dental injuries can cause pain, disfigurement, and broken teeth which may affect the athlete's well‐being and psychological status. Such injuries may also lead to the fear of re‐injury and other problems. Since a delay in adequate emergency treatment can have adverse effects, it is imperative that athletes and coaches have sufficient awareness of emergency treatment options. Hence, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the global status of knowledge among athletes and coaches regarding the prevention and emergency management of traumatic dental injuries. Methods: The protocol was designed using the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020184956). A broad‐based search using text words and MeSH terms was performed in established databases according to a predefined strategy without any distinction of language and year of publication. Studies without details of the questionnaire, knowledge score, validity, and reliability were excluded. Data extraction was performed and risk‐of‐bias assessment was done by means of the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Results: Nine studies published between 2005 and 2020 were included for qualitative synthesis. They were primarily from Asia with none from North America and Australia. Most of them were cross‐sectional, used convenience sampling, and were interview‐based. Less than 10% of the participants in two studies had adequate knowledge of the immediate emergency management of tooth avulsion, while only 2.4% of basketball players and coaches knew that it was necessary to collect the avulsed tooth or broken tooth fragments. The overall level of knowledge was reported as poor or insufficient in all studies, with moderate or high risk‐of‐bias in six studies. Conclusion: The knowledge regarding emergency management of TDI was found to be low globally. Along with the choice of the sport, there was a high level of variability in the study design and sampling characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]