19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of treatments used to relieve signs and symptoms associated with teething: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract: The purpose of this review was to systematically evaluate all the existing literature on the efficacy of treatments used to relieve the signs and symptoms associated with teething. A systematic search up to February 2021, without restrictions on language or date of publication, was carried out in MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, Portal de Periódicos da CAPES, clinicaltrials.gov, and the references of the included studies. Clinical studies that evaluated the effect of any intervention to alleviate the signs and symptoms associated with teething in babies and children were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. The characteristics and results of the individual studies were extracted and synthesized narratively. The GRADE approach was followed to rate the certainty of the evidence. Three randomized and two non-randomized clinical trials were included. The outcomes of these five articles were classified as high or serious risk of bias. Three studies using homeopathy reported improvement in appetite disorders, gum discomfort, and excess salivation. One study showed a new gel with hyaluronic acid was more effective than an anesthetic gel in improving signs and symptoms such as pain, gingival redness, and poor sleep quality. Another study applied non-pharmacological treatments, which were more effective, especially against excess salivation. Although the present systematic review suggests some therapies could have a favorable effect on signs and symptoms related to teething, definitive conclusions on their efficacy cannot be drawn because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The existing literature on the subject is scarce and heterogeneous and has methodological flaws; therefore, further high-quality investigations are necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                bor
                Brazilian Oral Research
                Braz. oral res.
                Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO (São Paulo, SP, Brazil )
                1806-8324
                1807-3107
                2022
                : 36
                : e066
                Affiliations
                [3] Jequié orgnameUniversidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia orgdiv1Department of Healthy I Brazil
                [2] Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro orgnameUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro orgdiv1Health Science Center, Central Library orgdiv2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Brazil
                [1] Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro orgnameUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro orgdiv1School of Dentistry orgdiv2Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics Brazil
                Article
                S1806-83242022000100402 S1806-8324(22)03600000402
                10.1590/1807-3107bor-2022.vol36.0066
                f7a3c8fc-aa37-4c50-96ba-b4fc80d379ef

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 01 December 2021
                : 31 May 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 26, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Systematic Review

                Signs and Symptoms,Systematic Review,Clinical Trial,Therapeutics,Tooth Eruption

                Comments

                Comment on this article