A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Self-assembling peptides for managing white spot lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Purpose: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of self-assembling P11-4 peptide (SAP) with or without any fluoride agents (FA) in remineralization of the White spot lesions (WSLs)/incipient carious lesions (ICLs) compared to other enamel remineralizing agents/non-intervention/placebo.

Methods: Human RCTs published during the period from 1st January 2000-30th June 2021 were searched in the electronic bibliographic databases and scanning reference lists of articles from PubMed, Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The Risk-of-Bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) tool for all included studies. The statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the Cochrane Q test and I test. A random-effects model was used considering the variations in true effects size between the included studies. The quality of the evidence for remineralizing effectiveness of SAP/SAP + FA was done using the GRADEpro GDT software which employs GRADE.

Results: Four out of eight included trials were assessed to have "high risk" of bias. Mean difference for Laser fluorescence outcome assessment method (SAP v/s FA) was - 4.89 (95% CI: - 17.35 to 7.57; p = 0. 44; I = 89%). The combined risk ratio observed through Nyvad criteria (SAP v/s FA) was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.01-1.59; p = 0.11; I = 71%). Mean difference for Laser fluorescence outcome assessment method (SAP + FA v/s FA) was - 11.52 (95% CI: - 14.43 to - 8.61; p =  < 0.001;I = 0%). The combined risk ratio for ICDAS outcome assessment method (SAP + FA v/s FA) was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.03-2.84; p = 0.15; I = 53%).

Conclusion: Considering the results observed from the included trials we are uncertain whether SAP/SAP + FA increases/decreases the remineralizing/regeneration of WSLs/ICLs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40368-023-00821-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

white spot
8
spot lesions
8
included studies
8
difference laser
8
laser fluorescence
8
fluorescence outcome
8
outcome assessment
8
assessment method
8
sap v/s
8
self-assembling peptides
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!