@article{FaggionApazaArizaFritasetal.2017,
  author    = {Faggion, Clovis Mariano, Jr. and Apaza, Karol and Ariza-Fritas, Tania and M{\´a}laga, Lilian and Giannakopoulos, Nikolaos Nikitas and Alarc{\´o}n, Marco Antonio},
  title     = {Methodological quality of consensus guidelines in implant dentistry},
  series = {PLOS One},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {PLOS One},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0170262},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-180987},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background: Consensus guidelines are useful to improve clinical decision making. Therefore, the methodological evaluation of these guidelines is of paramount importance. Low quality information may guide to inadequate or harmful clinical decisions. Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of consensus guidelines published in implant dentistry using a validated methodological instrument. Methods: The six implant dentistry journals with impact factors were scrutinised for consensus guidelines related to implant dentistry. Two assessors independently selected consensus guidelines, and four assessors independently evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research \& Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Disagreements in the selection and evaluation of guidelines were resolved by consensus. First, the consensus guidelines were analysed alone. Then, systematic reviews conducted to support the guidelines were included in the analysis. Non-parametric statistics for dependent variables (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare both groups. Results: Of 258 initially retrieved articles, 27 consensus guidelines were selected. Median scores in four domains (applicability, rigour of development, stakeholder involvement, and editorial independence), expressed as percentages of maximum possible domain scores, were below 50\% (median, 26\%, 30.70\%, 41.70\%, and 41.70\%, respectively). The consensus guidelines and consensus guidelines + systematic reviews data sets could be compared for 19 guidelines, and the results showed significant improvements in all domain scores (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Methodological improvement of consensus guidelines published in major implant dentistry journals is needed. The findings of the present study may help researchers to better develop consensus guidelines in implant dentistry, which will improve the quality and trust of information needed to make proper clinical decisions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ŞenOrhanSerteletal.2020,
  author    = {Şen, Sinan and Orhan, G{\"u}l and Sertel, Serkan and Schmitter, Marc and Schindler, Hans J. and Lux, Christopher J. and Giannakopoulos, Nikolaos Nikitas},
  title     = {Comparison of acupuncture on specific and non-specific points for the treatment of painful temporomandibular disorders: A randomised controlled trial},
  series = {Journal of Oral Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {47},
  journal   = {Journal of Oral Rehabilitation},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1111/joor.12952},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-215419},
  pages     = {783 -- 795},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background and Objective The aim of this single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was to investigate the disputed specific effectiveness of acupuncture by comparing acupuncture on specific and non-specific points among patients with non-chronic, painful TMDs. Methods Following predefined eligibility criteria, 49 consecutive patients of both sexes were recruited to the study. All subjects were diagnosed with a non-chronic (Graded Chronic Pain Scale grade <3) painful TMD, as assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Patients were randomly assigned to group A (acupuncture on specific points) or group B (acupuncture on non-specific points) after the initial examination (T0). Both acupuncture treatment sessions were conducted by a trained dentist once a week for four weeks. The examination was repeated five weeks (T5) after T0 by one calibrated examiner who was unaware of the study groups. Characteristic pain intensity (CPI) was evaluated as the main outcome criterion and compared between times and treatment groups by means of non-parametric tests (significance level set at P = .05). Secondary outcomes comprised the maximum corrected active mouth-opening without pain (MAO); patients' expectations regarding acupuncture treatment and pain development; depressivity; and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Results A total of 41 patients (38 female) successfully completed the study (mean age: 40.17 ± 16.61). The two groups did not differ significantly at any time in terms of age and CPI. However, CPI was significantly (P < .05) lower at T5 than at T0 for both groups (29.66 and 30.35\% lower in group A and group B, respectively). An increase in MAO was observed at T5 for both groups but was significant for group B only (P = .016). All patients had positive expectations of acupuncture therapy, and the two groups did not differ significantly at T5 with regard to the extent to which their expectations had been fulfilled by the treatment (P = .717). Comparison of T0 and T5 showed a statistically significant reduction of depressivity for group A (P = .0205), but no significant change for group B (P = .329). At T5, OHRQoL had improved significantly for both groups (group A, P = .018; group B, P < .001) compared with at T0. Conclusions Acupuncture on both specific and non-specific points reduces the non-dysfunctional pain of TMD patients. The effect of acupuncture on painful TMD cannot be attributed to the specific point selection.},
  language  = {en}
}