Trent L Outhouse

United States Navy, Monterey, California, United States

Are you Trent L Outhouse?

Claim your profile

Publications (7)11.41 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Irreversible pulpitis, characterized by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from tooth removal, pain relief is achieved by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, although many dentists continue to prescribe systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis our Cochrane review [CD 004969] found that there was no evidence for their effectiveness. Objectives: To use the results of our Cochrane review on the lack of effectiveness of antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis to design a survey that can be used to help inform the “Implications for Practice and Research” section of the Cochrane Review. Methods: On-line survey: clinical vignette, single question with a choice of one of 6 treatment options, one of which indicates a preference for prescribing of antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. Participants surveyed were a global sample of general dentists, specialist endodontists and post-doc endodontic residents. The survey was distributed via email, online professional public forums and social networks. Responses were imported into Excel and analyzed. Further ongoing analysis will explore survey responders’ awareness of the Cochrane Review CD 004969 and any related clinical guidelines. Results: 255 completed questionnaires (March 2014), Responders: General dentists (205); specialist endodontists (32); Post-doc residents (18). Country of origin: 15 countries across the globe. 64 (25%) would prescribe antibiotic for irreversible pulpitis; 86% of those would prescribe antibiotics plus analgesics, remainder (9) antibiotics alone. Conclusions: Antibiotics continue to be prescribed for irreversible pulpitis by some general dentists and endodontists at global level. This survey provided additional contextual information which has been discussed and included in the Implications for Research/Practice section of our Cochrane Review.
    Cochrane Colloquium 2014; 09/2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Halitosis is an unpleasant odour emanating from the oral cavity. Mouthwashes, which are commonly used for dealing with oral malodour, can be generally divided into those that neutralize and those that mask the odour. To investigate the effects of mouthrinses in controlling halitosis. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to August 2008); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1950 to August 2008); EMBASE (1980 to August 2008); and CINAHL (1982 to August 2008). There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mouthrinses to placebo in adults over the age of 18 with halitosis and without significant other comorbidities or health conditions.The primary outcomes considered were self expressed and organoleptic (human nose) assessments of halitosis, and the secondary outcomes included assessment of halitosis as measured by a halimeter, portable sulphide monitor or by gas chromatography coupled with flame-photometric detection. Two independent review authors screened and extracted information from, and independently assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. Five RCTs, involving 293 participants who were randomised to mouthrinses or placebo, were included in this review.In view of the clinical heterogeneity between the trials, pooling of the results and meta-analysis of the extracted data was not feasible and therefore only a descriptive summary of the results of the included trials is provided.0.05% chlorhexidine + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride + 0.14% zinc lactate mouthrinse significantly reduced the mean change (standard deviation (SD)) of organoleptic scores from baseline compared to placebo (-1.13 (1.1) P < 0.005 versus -0.2 (0.7)) and also caused a more significant reduction in the mean change (SD) in peak level of volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) (-120 (92) parts per billion (ppb) versus 8 (145) ppb in placebo). The chlorhexidine cetylpyridinium chloride zinc lactate mouthrinse showed significantly more tongue (P < 0.001) and tooth (P < 0.002) staining compared to placebo.However, in view of the incomplete reporting of results in three of the trials and the sole use of the halimeter for assessment of VSC levels as outcomes in two further trials, caution should be exercised in interpreting these results. Mouthrinses containing antibacterial agents such as chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride may play an important role in reducing the levels of halitosis-producing bacteria on the tongue, and chlorine dioxide and zinc containing mouthrinses can be effective in neutralisation of odouriferous sulphur compounds.Well designed randomised controlled trials with a larger sample size, a longer intervention and follow-up period are still needed.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2007; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Halitosis is used to describe any disagreeable odour of expired air regardless of its origin. Mouthwashes which disguise oral malodor are more socially acceptable and generally more popular than tongue scrapers. To provide reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness of tongue scraping versus other interventions (including mouthwashes) to control halitosis. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 15th September 2005); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005); MEDLINE 1966 to September Week 1 2005; EMBASE 1974 to September 2005 (searched September 19th 2005). Randomized controlled trials comparing different methods of tongue cleaning to reduce mouth odour in adults with halitosis. Clinical heterogeneity between the two included trials precluded pooling of data, therefore a descriptive summary is presented. This review included two trials involving 40 participants. Both trials were methodologically sound but included no data for the primary outcomes specified in this review. Secondary outcomes expressed as volatile sulfur compound (VSC) levels were assessed by a portable sulfide monitor in both trials. One trial showed reductions of VSC levels of 42% with the tongue cleaner, 40% with the tongue scraper and 33% with the toothbrush. Reduced VSC levels persisted longer with the tongue cleaner than the toothbrush and could not be detected for more than 30 minutes after the intervention in any of the groups. Differences were assessed by the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed rank tests with the level of significance set at P < 0.05. The second trial, in which differences in totaled rank values between groups were compared by the Dunn method alpha = 0.01, showed a reduction of VSC levels compared with baseline measurements of 75% with the tongue scraper and 45% with the toothbrush. Adverse effects in one trial were nausea (60%) and trauma (10%) with the toothbrush and all participants receptive to using the tongue scraper. Based on the independent data from these two trials there was a statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of either the tongue cleaner or the tongue scraper in reducing VSC levels when compared with the toothbrush. There is weak and unreliable evidence to show that there is a small but statistically significant difference in reduction of VSC levels when tongue scrapers or cleaners rather than toothbrushes are used to reduce halitosis in adults. We found no high level evidence comparing mechanical with other forms of tongue cleaning.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2006; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Cochrane systematic review promotes evidence-based outcome studies. This review was conducted to determine reliable evidence concerning the effectiveness of tongue scraping or cleaning, compared with other interventions for controlling halitosis. A competent search strategy was developed and used across several databases--including the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar--to identify randomized controlled trials that compared different methods of tongue cleaning to reduce mouth odor in adults with halitosis. Methodological quality of studies was assessed based on criteria defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. Clinical outcome (expressed in terms of a reduction in mouth odor in adults with halitosis) was examined. The review included two trials involving a total of 40 participants. Based on the independent data from these two trials, the tongue cleaner or the tongue scraper demonstrated a statistically significant difference in reducing levels of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) when compared with the toothbrush. The findings indicate a small but statistically significant difference in reduction of VSC levels when tongue scrapers or cleaners, rather than toothbrushes, are used to reduce halitosis in adults.
    General dentistry 01/2006; 54(5):352-9; 360, 367-8; quiz 360.
  • 01/2006;
  • Source
    Zbys Fedorowicz, Trent L Outhouse
    Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences (ISSN: 1677-3217) Vol 4 Num 12. 01/2005;
  • Trent L Outhouse
    General dentistry 54(4):228-9.