Muhammed Al-Huda Ballouk

Helpless, the human race stands in front of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that has invaded us and evaded our defences, leaving the world stranded and surrendering to each and every mobile app notification suggesting any persuasive personalised contents, for instance. Wherever we go nowadays, we cannot but touch the deep impact, positive and negative, on all life aspects, including healthcare and our well-being. The dental field is no exception to that, with its favourite child and first specialisation that rests in its heart of hearts, orthodontics, being also hit and beaten by AI. This epistemological review spots the light on the use of AI as an overall experience whether in healthcare, medicine, or even dentistry, but more specifically in the orthodontic arena, and discusses possible advantages and disadvantages as well as future threats and challenges with the eye of a critical philosophical approach and the lens of a fundamental debate-based discussion. Various studies have been collected from different databases to support the detailed arguments presented, showing the different rationalities, and irrationalities, concerning the use of AI.

Background and objectives: Gingivitis and periodontitis are common periodontal diseases that can significantly harm overall oral health, affecting the teeth and their supporting tissues, along with the surrounding anatomical structures, and if left untreated, leading to the total destruction of the alveolar bone and the connective tissues, tooth loss, and other more serious systemic health issues. Numerous studies have shown that propolis can help reduce gum inflammation, inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria, and promote tissue regeneration, but with varying degrees of success reported. For this reason, this comprehensive systematic review aims at finding out the truth concerning the efficacy of propolis mouthwashes in treating gingivitis and periodontitis, as its main objective. Data sources: Research findings from 6 different databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PubMed®, Europe PMC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), BioMed Central, and Google Scholar, were retrieved and examined in addition to a manual search in the references lists. Study selection and synthesis: The PICOS framework was used to select and exclude studies. The focus was on clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of propolis-containing mouthwashes in comparison with propolis-free ones for the treatment of gingivitis and periodontitis, employing related periodontal indices. Animal studies, microbiological studies, in-vitro studies, retrospective studies, case-control studies, cohorts, case reports, case series, reviews, letters, editorials, meta-analyses, and non-clinical randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs), all were excluded. A meta-analysis was not performed and data were only studied qualitatively due to the obvious heterogeneity amongst the studies. Data from the selected studies were extracted, and then the revised Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0) was utilised by two of the authors, independently, to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. Results: At first, 151 results were reached, but then after removing duplicates, 99 records remained, and were later screened, assessed, and studied in full details based on the set PICOS criteria. Out of these 99 articles, ten studies were included in this systematic review, encompassing a total of 453 patients with an age range of (13–70) years old. Propolis mouthwashes with different protocols of application were the intervention whereas placebo or the rest of the tested mouthwashes such as, chlorhexidine, sodium fluoride with cetylpyridinium chloride, sterile distilled water, hydrogen peroxide, were the ones to which propolis mouthwashes were compared. Treatment duration extended from 14 days to 3 months and the follow-up period differed from 14 days to 3 months. In general, propolis mouthwashes decreased plaque accumulations and gingival inflammation in gingivitis patients based on the employed indices. On the other hand, the aforementioned tested mouthwashes other than propolis were deemed equally effective or even superior to propolis in some studies. As an overall assessment for the risk of bias, four studies were assigned as having a low risk of bias. Two studies were deemed to have some concerns, while four studies were identified as having a high risk of bias. Conclusions: Despite the fact that propolis has shown positive effects in terms of controlling gingival and periodontal inflammation especially when used with mechanical methods, studies lack certainty and their power of evidence is low with no agreed gold standards. These conclusions come, for sure, within the limitations of this review, like having substantial variability amongst the included studies and the presence of studies with a high risk of bias. The findings demonstrate that propolis-based mouthwashes showed promising clinical outcomes in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation. However, it is highly recommended to conduct more rigorous trials with patient-reported outcome measures, extended follow-up periods, larger samples sizes, better-designed methodologies, typified propolis use, and with the implementation of similar indices in order to obtain more reliable, conclusive, and generalisable results. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024524523.

Background: There are 54,000 new cases of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer in the United States and more than 476,000 worldwide each year. Oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma make up most tumors with five-year survival rates of 50% due to prevalence of late-stage diagnoses. Improved methods of early detection in high-risk individuals are urgently needed. We aimed to assess the tumorigenic biomarkers soluble CD44 (solCD44) and total protein (TP) measured using oral rinses as affordable convenient screening tools for cancer detection. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we recruited 150 healthy current or former smokers through a community screening program. Baseline and four annual visits were conducted from March 2011-January 2016 with records followed until August 2020. Participants provided oral rinses, received head and neck exams, and completed questionnaires. SolCD44 and TP levels were measured and compared across groups and time. Participants were placed in the cancer group if malignancy developed in the study period, the suspicious group if physical exams were concerning for premalignant disease or cancer in the head and neck, and the healthy group if there were no suspicious findings. This analysis used two-sample t-test for comparison of means and two-sample Wilcoxon Test for comparison of medians. For subjects with follow-ups, estimated means of biomarkers were obtained from a fitted Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RANOVA) model including group, visit, and their interaction. Pairwise comparisons of mean solCD44 were made, including intergroup and intragroup comparison of values at different years. Results: Most participants were males (58.7%), < 60 years of age. (90.7%), and Black (100%). Baseline mean solCD44 was elevated (2.781 ng/ml) in the cancer group compared to the suspicious group (1.849 ng/ml) and healthy group (1.779 ng/ml). Conclusion: This study supports the feasibility of a CD44-based oral rinse test as an affordable and convenient adjunctive tool for early detection of aerodigestive tract and other cancers in high-risk populations.

Background: Early childhood caries (ECC) is a global public health challenge that requires innovation, infrastructure, and health system influences to bolster initiatives for its management and control. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the published evidence on the association between ECC and the targets of the Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG9) concerned with industry, innovation, and infrastructure development. Methods: The scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus between July and August 2023 using a search strategy related to the promotion of resilient infrastructure, sustainable industries, scientific research and innovation, access to the internet and ECC. Only English language publications were included. Studies that solely examined ECC without reference to the SDG9 targets were excluded. Results: The search yielded 933 studies for review. After screening for the eligibility and removing duplicates, 916 unique articles remained for further screening. However, none of the identified studies provided data on the association between resilient infrastructure, sustainable industries, scientific research and innovation, access to the internet and ECC. Conclusion: There were no primary studies that assessed the association between ECC and SDG9, even though the plausibility of a potential relationship exists. Future studies are needed to generate evidence on the link between ECC and SDG9 as this link may contribute to the reduction in the proportion of children with untreated ECC.