-
International Dental Journal Dec 2022Caries is the most prevalent chronic noncommunicable disease. Strategies to prevent its onset and early interventions to arrest the progression of early lesions have... (Review)
Review
Caries is the most prevalent chronic noncommunicable disease. Strategies to prevent its onset and early interventions to arrest the progression of early lesions have been emphasised throughout recent decades to avoid or delay the restorative spiral of the tooth. More individuals are retaining their natural teeth into old age, thereby necessitating ongoing restorative dentistry intervention for their maintenance. The aim of this systematic review was to update the state of the art regarding clinical studies reporting the effectiveness of different nonrestorative caries treatment options in the 5-year period from 2017 to 2022. Relevant articles were retrieved from 2 electronic databases, including randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published from January 2017 until April 2022, assessing effectiveness and secondary effects of at least one nonrestorative caries treatment option, carried out with adults and/or children with noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions on either primary or permanent teeth and diagnosed by radiographs or visual/tactile assessment. All 35 included articles presented the results of RCTs with a follow-up period ranging from 6 to 84 months. Most of these studies were considered high-quality articles with a low risk of bias. Sealants and fluoride gels and varnishes were mentioned in 12 studies as effective strategies to prevent the onset of caries lesions and to arrest them in the early stages. Resin infiltration reported high caries arresting rates in noncavitated proximal lesions in 10 publications. Silver diammine fluoride presented high caries-arresting rates in open dentin lesions, both in primary and permanent dentitions as well as in root caries lesions that were accessible for cleansing. New evidence has been published between 2017 and 2022 as the result of numerous clinical studies providing further evidence of the effectiveness of nonrestorative caries treatment options.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Fluorides; Dental Caries; Fluorides, Topical; Dentition, Permanent
PubMed: 35879115
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.06.022 -
Journal of Dental Research Jan 2019The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 30290130
DOI: 10.1177/0022034518800014 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and maturity of the technology remain unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the performance of the AI models for detecting dental plaque and diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A review was performed in 4 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies were classified into 4 groups: detecting dental plaque, diagnosis of gingivitis, diagnosis of periodontal disease from intraoral images, and diagnosis of alveolar bone loss from periapical, bitewing, and panoramic radiographs. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were included: 2 studies developed AI models for detecting plaque, resulting in accuracy ranging from 73.6% to 99%; 7 studies assessed the ability to diagnose gingivitis from intraoral photographs reporting an accuracy between 74% and 78.20%; 1 study used fluorescent intraoral images to diagnose gingivitis reporting 67.7% to 73.72% accuracy; 3 studies assessed the ability to diagnose periodontal disease from intraoral photographs with an accuracy between 47% and 81%, and 11 studies evaluated the performance of AI models for detecting alveolar bone loss from radiographic images reporting an accuracy between 73.4% and 99%.
CONCLUSIONS
AI models for periodontology applications are still in development but might provide a powerful diagnostic tool.
Topics: Humans; Dental Plaque; Alveolar Bone Loss; Artificial Intelligence; Periodontal Diseases; Gingivitis
PubMed: 35300850
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.026 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2022External apical root resorption (EARR) is a serious complication that should be avoided during orthodontic treatment; this pathology depends on multiple factors. Data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
External apical root resorption (EARR) is a serious complication that should be avoided during orthodontic treatment; this pathology depends on multiple factors. Data from clinical studies should be assessed to determine the influence these factors have on the development of EARR. This systematic review aims to compare EARR produced by different factors (orthodontic systems, dental trauma, and dental vitality). The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database. The search was performed on 5 databases. Accepted study designs included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, and observational studies. Full-text articles from clinical studies of EARR associated with orthodontic treatment in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with no publication date restrictions were selected. Data from the studies, such as age, population, study groups, and outcome measures, were recorded. Multiple meta-analyses were performed with data from the included studies. Evidence suggests that EARR induced by orthodontic treatment is similar, regardless of the technique used. Evidence of the effect of previous dental trauma on EARR during orthodontic treatment is limited. There is less EARR associated with orthodontic treatment in endodontically treated teeth than in vital teeth. These conclusions should be considered with caution due to the low certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Root Resorption; Tooth, Nonvital; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36206494
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/145369 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant...
BACKGROUND
Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30968949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2 -
International Endodontic Journal May 2021Apical periodontitis (AP) frequently presents as a chronic asymptomatic disease. To arrive at a true diagnosis, in addition to the clinical examination, it is mandatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Apical periodontitis (AP) frequently presents as a chronic asymptomatic disease. To arrive at a true diagnosis, in addition to the clinical examination, it is mandatory to undertake radiographic examinations such as periapical or panoramic radiographs, or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Thus, the worldwide burden of AP is probably underestimated or unknown. Previous systematic reviews attempted to estimate the prevalence of AP, but none have investigated which factors may influence its prevalence worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To assess: (i) the prevalence of AP in the population worldwide, as well as the frequency of AP in all teeth, nontreated teeth and root filled teeth; (ii) which factors can modify the prevalence of AP.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the PubMed-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, LILACS, Google scholar and OpenGrey databases, followed by hand searches, until September 2019. Cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies reporting the prevalence of AP in humans, using panoramic or periapical radiograph or CBCT as image methods were included. No language restriction was applied. An adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled prevalence of AP at the individual level. Secondary outcomes were the frequency of AP in all teeth, nontreated teeth and rootfilled teeth. Subgroup analyses using random-effect models were carried out to analyse the influence of explanatory covariables on the outcome.
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 6670 articles, and 114 studies were included in the meta-analysis, providing data from 34 668 individuals and 639 357 teeth. The prevalence of AP was 52% at the individual level (95% CI 42%-56%, I = 97.8%) and 5% at the tooth level (95% CI 4%-6%; I = 99.5%). The frequency of AP in root-filled teeth and nontreated teeth was 39% (95% CI 36%-43%; I = 98.5%) and 3% (95% CI 2%-3%; I = 99.3%), respectively. The prevalence of AP was greater in samples from dental care services (DCS; 57%; 95% CI 52%-62%; I = 97.8%) and hospitals (51%; 95% CI 40%-63%; I = 95.9%) than in those from the general population (GP; 40%; 95% CI 33%-46%; I = 96.5%); it was also greater in people with a systemic condition (63%; 95% CI 56%-69%, I = 89.7%) compared to healthy individuals (48%; 95% CI 43%-53%; I = 98.3%).
DISCUSSION
The subgroup analyses identified explanatory factors related to the variability in the prevalence of AP. However, the high clinical heterogeneity and high risk of bias across the primary studies indicate that the findings must be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS
Half of the adult population worldwide have at least one tooth with apical periodontitis. The prevalence of AP is greater in samples from the dental care services, but it is also high amongst community representative samples from the general population. The present findings should bring the attention of health policymakers, medical and dental communities to the hidden burden of endodontic disease in the population worldwide.
Topics: Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Prevalence; Root Canal Obturation; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 33378579
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13467 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2015To develop preventive strategies addressing peri-implant diseases, a thorough understanding of the epidemiology is required. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To develop preventive strategies addressing peri-implant diseases, a thorough understanding of the epidemiology is required.
AIM
The aim was to systematically assess the scientific literature in order to evaluate the prevalence, extent and severity of peri-implant diseases.
MATERIAL & METHODS
Data were extracted from identified studies. Meta-analyses for prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were performed. The effect of function time and disease definition on the prevalence of peri-implantitis was evaluated by meta-regression analyses. Data on extent and severity of peri-implant diseases were estimated if not directly reported.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles describing 11 studies were included. Case definitions for mucositis and peri-implantitis varied. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis ranged from 19 to 65% and from 1 to 47%, respectively. Meta-analyses estimated weighted mean prevalences of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and 22% (CI: 14-30%), respectively. The meta-regression showed a positive relationship between prevalence of peri-implantitis and function time and a negative relationship between prevalence of peri-implantitis and threshold for bone loss. Extent and severity of peri-implant diseases were rarely reported.
CONCLUSION
Future studies on the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases should consider (i) applying consistent case definitions and (ii) assessing random patient samples of adequate size and function time.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Global Health; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Prevalence; Stomatitis
PubMed: 25495683
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12334 -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2018Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of...
OBJECTIVE
Considering that the available studies on prevalence of malocclusions are local or national-based, this study aimed to pool data to determine the distribution of malocclusion traits worldwide in mixed and permanent dentitions.
METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar search engines, to retrieve data on malocclusion prevalence for both mixed and permanent dentitions, up to December 2016.
RESULTS
Out of 2,977 retrieved studies, 53 were included. In permanent dentition, the global distributions of Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusion were 74.7% [31 - 97%], 19.56% [2 - 63%] and 5.93% [1 - 20%], respectively. In mixed dentition, the distributions of these malocclusions were 73% [40 - 96%], 23% [2 - 58%] and 4% [0.7 - 13%]. Regarding vertical malocclusions, the observed deep overbite and open bite were 21.98% and 4.93%, respectively. Posterior crossbite affected 9.39% of the sample. Africans showed the highest prevalence of Class I and open bite in permanent dentition (89% and 8%, respectively), and in mixed dentition (93% and 10%, respectively), while Caucasians showed the highest prevalence of Class II in permanent dentition (23%) and mixed dentition (26%). Class III malocclusion in mixed dentition was highly prevalent among Mongoloids.
CONCLUSION
Worldwide, in mixed and permanent dentitions, Angle Class I malocclusion is more prevalent than Class II, specifically among Africans; the least prevalent was Class III, although higher among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. In vertical dimension, open bite was highest among Mongoloids in mixed dentition. Posterior crossbite was more prevalent in permanent dentition in Europe.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Occlusion, Traumatic; Dentition, Mixed; Dentition, Permanent; Female; Geography; Global Health; Humans; Male; Malocclusion; Malocclusion, Angle Class I; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Open Bite; Population; Prevalence; Race Factors
PubMed: 30672991
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery protocols (PICOS-3) to treat periodontitis.
METHODS
Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/SCOPUS/LILACS) to March 2019 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on subgingival instrumentation. Duplicate screening and data extraction were performed to formulate evidence tables and meta-analysis as appropriate.
RESULTS
As only one RCT addressed the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation compared with supragingival cleaning alone (PICOS-1), baseline and final measures from 9 studies were considered. The weighted pocket depth (PD) reduction was 1.4 mm (95%CI: 1.0 1.7) at 6/8 months, and the proportion of pocket closure was estimated at 74% (95%CI: 64-85). Six RCTs compared hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments for subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-2). No significant differences were observed between groups by follow-up time point or category of initial PD. Thirteen RCTs evaluated quadrant-wise versus full-mouth approaches (PICOS-3). No significant differences were observed between groups irrespective of time-points or initial PD. Five studies reported patient-reported outcomes, reporting no differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Nonsurgical periodontal therapy by mechanical subgingival instrumentation is an efficacious means to achieve infection control in periodontitis patients irrespective of the type of instrument or mode of delivery. Prospero ID: CRD42019124887.
Topics: Dental Scaling; Humans; Periodontitis; Ultrasonics
PubMed: 31889320
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13245 -
International Journal of... Dec 2016To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament... (Review)
Review
To date, topical therapies guarantee a better delivery of high concentrations of pharmacologic agents to the soft periodontal tissue, gingiva, and periodontal ligament as well as to the hard tissue such as alveolar bone and cementum. Topical hyaluronic acid (HA) has recently been recognized as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease in addition to its use to improve healing after dental procedures. The aim of our work was to systematically review the published literature about potential effects of HA as an adjuvant treatment for chronic inflammatory disease, in addition to its use to improve healing after common dental procedures. Relevant published studies were found in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Ovid using a combined keyword search or medical subject headings. At the end of our study selection process, 25 relevant publications were included, three of them regarding gingivitis, 13 of them relating to chronic periodontitis, seven of them relating to dental surgery, including implant and sinus lift procedures, and the remaining three articles describing oral ulcers. Not only does topical administration of HA play a pivotal key role in the postoperative care of patients undergoing dental procedures, but positive results were also generally observed in all patients with chronic inflammatory gingival and periodontal disease and in patients with oral ulcers.
Topics: Animals; Chronic Disease; Dentistry; Gingivitis; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Inflammation; Periodontitis
PubMed: 27280412
DOI: 10.1177/0394632016652906