-
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2024Three years into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there are still growing concerns with the emergence of different variants, unknown long- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Three years into the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there are still growing concerns with the emergence of different variants, unknown long- and short-term effects of the virus, and potential biological mechanisms underlying etiopathogenesis and increased risk for morbidity and mortality. The role of the microbiome in human physiology and the initiation and progression of several oral and systemic diseases have been actively studied in the past decade. With the proof of viral transmission, carriage, and a potential role in etiopathogenesis, saliva and the oral environment have been a focus of COVID-19 research beyond diagnostic purposes. The oral environment hosts diverse microbial communities and contributes to human oral and systemic health. Several investigations have identified disruptions in the oral microbiome in COVID-19 patients. However, all these studies are cross-sectional in nature and present heterogeneity in study design, techniques, and analysis. Therefore, in this undertaking, we (a) systematically reviewed the current literature associating COVID-19 with changes in the microbiome; (b) performed a re-analysis of publicly available data as a means to standardize the analysis, and (c) reported alterations in the microbial characteristics in COVID-19 patients compared to negative controls. Overall, we identified that COVID-19 is associated with oral microbial dysbiosis with significant reduction in diversity. However, alterations in specific bacterial members differed across the study. Re-analysis from our pipeline shed light on Neisseria as the potential key microbial member associated with COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Dysbiosis; Microbiota; Mouth; Oropharynx; Saliva; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 37277934
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12489 -
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Oct 2022This systematic review purposed to investigate reports of oral lesions in confirmed COVID-19 patients summarizing clinical characteristics, histological findings,...
This systematic review purposed to investigate reports of oral lesions in confirmed COVID-19 patients summarizing clinical characteristics, histological findings, treatment and correlation of oral lesions and COVID-19 severity. Electronic search was conducted on November 2021 using seven databases to identify case reports/series describing lesions in oral mucosa in COVID-19 confirmed cases. A total of 5,179 studies were found, being 39 eligible from 19 countries, totalling 116 cases. It was observed only COVID-19 non-vaccinated cases and no sex or age predilection. The oral lesions presentation was mostly single location (69.8%), commonly in the tongue, lips, and palate, being ulcer the main clinical presentation. According to severity index for COVID-19, the reports were more frequent in patients with mild and moderate symptoms, being 75.8% in acute phase. The oral lesion appearance in post-acute COVID-19 were described after 14 to two months after patient recovery. Histologically, keratinocytes with perinuclear vacuolization, thrombosis and mononuclear inflammatory infiltrate were also described with the presence of the virus in keratinocytes, endothelial cells, and minor salivary glands. In conclusion, health care professionals should consider COVID-19 association when patient present ulcerated oral lesions and mild to moderate symptoms for COVID-19 or had acute-COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Endothelial Cells; Humans; Mouth Mucosa
PubMed: 35550190
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2022.05.005 -
Oral Diseases May 2023Halitosis is a term that refers to an unpleasant or foul odour originating from the oral cavity that can be caused by either intra-oral or extra-oral factors. Despite... (Review)
Review
Halitosis is a term that refers to an unpleasant or foul odour originating from the oral cavity that can be caused by either intra-oral or extra-oral factors. Despite the fact that halitosis has multifactorial aetiology, intra-oral factors play a significant role in the majority of cases. This systematic review assesses halitosis's intra-oral and extra-oral associations. An electronic search through MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar and the Wiley Online Library was conducted to identify relevant manuscripts. A keywords-based search was performed, using the terms 'halitosis', 'bad-breath', and 'oral malodour causes and aetiology'. Articles published from January 2014 to December 2020 were included. We selected studies evaluating the intra-oral and extra-oral factors that induce oral malodour, as well as the factors associated with systemic diseases. Eighty to ninety percent of halitosis is caused by intra-oral factors, with coated tongue, periodontal diseases and poor oral hygiene practices being the principal factors. Ten to twenty percent of halitosis is induced by extra-oral factors associated with systemic diseases. Multiple factors can cause halitosis, but most of the aetiology is intra-oral. Increased medical awareness is needed to determine the actual pathophysiological process of oral malodour in otherwise healthy individuals.
Topics: Humans; Halitosis; Periodontal Diseases; Tongue
PubMed: 35212093
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14172 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3 -
Archives of Oral Biology Apr 2024Periodontal bacteria can infiltrate the epithelium, activate signaling pathways, induce inflammation, and block natural killer and cytotoxic cells, all of which... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Periodontal bacteria can infiltrate the epithelium, activate signaling pathways, induce inflammation, and block natural killer and cytotoxic cells, all of which contribute to the vicious circle of carcinogenesis. It is unknown whether oral dysbiosis has an impact on the etiology or prognosis of OPMD.
AIMS
Within this paradigm, this work systemically investigated and reported on the composition of oral microbiota in patients with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) versus healthy controls.
METHODS
Observational studies that reported next generation sequencing analysis of oral tissue or salivary samples and found at least three bacterial species were included. Identification, screening, citation analysis, and graphical synthesis were carried out.
RESULTS
For oral lichen planus (OLP), the bacteria with the highest abundance were Fusobacterium, Capnocytophaga, Gemella, Granulicatella, Porphyromonas, and Rothia; for oral leukoplakia (OLK), Prevotella. Streptococci levels in OLK and OLP were lower. The usage of alcohol or smoke had no effect on the outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
An increase in periodontal pathogenic bacteria could promote the development and exacerbation of lichen. Effective bacteriome-based biomarkers are worthy of further investigation and application, as are bacteriome-based treatments.
Topics: Humans; Mouth Mucosa; Precancerous Conditions; Leukoplakia, Oral; Lichen Planus, Oral; Bacteria; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38295615
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2024.105891 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Aug 2012To determine the prevalence of oral and/or peri-oral piercings in young adults based on a systematic review of the available literature. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence of oral and/or peri-oral piercings in young adults based on a systematic review of the available literature.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were comprehensively searched through April 2012 to identify appropriate studies. The prevalence of oral and/or peri-oral piercings was evaluated in the general population, as well as by gender and by anatomical site.
RESULTS
An independent screening of 1711 unique titles and abstracts resulted in 13 publications that met the eligibility criteria. In total, 11 249 participants (mean age, 20.6 years) were questioned and/or examined for oral and/or peri-oral piercings. In the studies that provided information concerning the presence of oral and/or peri-oral piercings, the prevalence varied from 0.8% to 12%, resulting in a mean prevalence of 5.2%. When examined based on anatomical site, the most common sites were the tongue (a prevalence of 5.6%), followed by the lip (1.5%). Oral piercings were more prevalent in women (5.6%) than men (1.6%).
CONCLUSION
Among the populations that were studied, oral and/or peri-oral piercings were observed in a relatively small percentage (5.2%) of young adults. The prevalence was approximately four times higher among females when compared with males. On the basis of the literature, the tongue was the most common oral site for a piercing. Dental care professionals are in an ideal position to offer information regarding safe piercings and to provide advice regarding oral hygiene, aftercare and possible complications.
Topics: Age Distribution; Body Piercing; Female; Humans; Lip; Male; Mouth; Sex Distribution; Tongue; Young Adult
PubMed: 23046008
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2012.00566.x -
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine :... Sep 2021The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the available data regarding acinic cell carcinoma of the oral and maxillofacial region. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the available data regarding acinic cell carcinoma of the oral and maxillofacial region.
METHODS
A search strategy was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase electronic databases.
RESULTS
Available data revealed a slight female preference (54.73%) and a mean age at diagnosis of 47.51 ± 19.85 years. The parotid glands (67.72%) were most frequently affected, and most cases were asymptomatic (69.54%). A microcystic histopathological pattern was reported in 21.56% of the cases, and the Periodic acid-Schiff was the staining method most frequently used, after the hematoxylin and eosin staining, in the tumors analyzed. The lesions were mainly treated by surgical removal (72.32%). Recurrence was reported in 81 cases (27.83%) and metastasis in 100 (42.91%). Statistical data analysis revealed that tumors located in major salivary glands and exhibiting high-grade histology were associated with local recurrence (P = .01). In addition, the patients older than 57 years, lesions with bone involvement, the high-grade tumors and the cases with a history of recurrence and metastasis were associated with a lower overall survival (P < .05).
CONCLUSION
By assembling all eligible cases in the literature, the present systematic review determined the most common clinicopathological profile of acinic cell carcinoma and the most relevant prognostic factors in a distinctly representative sample. The survey demonstrated the importance of considering the histopathological grading in order to better define the treatment for each case.
Topics: Carcinoma, Acinar Cell; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Parotid Gland; Salivary Gland Neoplasms; Salivary Glands
PubMed: 33455041
DOI: 10.1111/jop.13159 -
The British Journal of Psychiatry : the... Oct 2015There is a well-established link between oral pathology and eating disorders in the presence of self-induced vomiting. There is less information concerning this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a well-established link between oral pathology and eating disorders in the presence of self-induced vomiting. There is less information concerning this relationship in the absence of self-induced vomiting, in spite of risk factors such as psychotropic-induced dry mouth, nutritional deficiency or acidic diet.
AIMS
To determine the association between eating disorder and poor oral health, including any difference between patients with and without self-induced vomiting.
METHOD
A systematic search was made of Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and article bibliographies. Outcomes were dental erosion, salivary gland function and the mean number of decayed, missing and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/S).
RESULTS
Ten studies had sufficient data for a random effects meta-analysis (psychiatric patients n = 556, controls n = 556). Patients with an eating disorder had five times the odds of dental erosion compared with controls (95% CI 3.31-7.58); odds were highest in those with self-induced vomiting (odds ratio (OR) = 7.32). Patients also had significantly higher DMFS scores (mean difference 3.07, 95% CI 0.66-5.48) and reduced salivary flow (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.51).
CONCLUSIONS
These findings highlight the importance of collaboration between dental and medical practitioners. Dentists may be the first clinicians to suspect an eating disorder given patients' reluctance to present for psychiatric treatment, whereas mental health clinicians should be aware of the oral consequences of inappropriate diet, psychotropic medication and self-induced vomiting.
Topics: Feeding and Eating Disorders; Humans; Oral Health; Publication Bias; Risk Factors; Salivary Glands; Tooth Diseases; Tooth Erosion
PubMed: 26429686
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.156323 -
Clinical Anatomy (New York, N.Y.) Jul 2016Cri du chat syndrome is an autosomal disorder. Because it affects few people in the population it is considered a rare disease, yet it is one of the most common... (Review)
Review
Cri du chat syndrome is an autosomal disorder. Because it affects few people in the population it is considered a rare disease, yet it is one of the most common autosomal chromosomal syndromes in humans. It entails pathognomonic alterations that affect the craniofacial and oral anatomy of patients. The aim of this study is to review these craniofacial and oral abnormalities in patients with Cri du chat syndrome. The PubMed Medline database was searched using two different strategies. First, we used "Dentistry" and "Cri du chat" as keywords; second, we used "Cri du chat" and "craniofacial." Seven articles in which the main orofacial and cranio-skeletal characteristics of patients with Cri du chat syndrome were described were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cri du Chat syndrome entails pathognomonic characteristics in the craniofacial area (epicanthus, short philtrum, and wide nasal bridge), the oral area (mandibular retrognathism and anterior open bite) and the cranial region (alterations at the cranial base angle and a small upper airway). However, more studies on larger samples are needed to specify the orofacial and craniofacial characteristics of patients with Cri du chat syndrome more accurately. Clin. Anat. 29:555-560, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Topics: Craniofacial Abnormalities; Cri-du-Chat Syndrome; Humans; Mouth; Skull
PubMed: 26457586
DOI: 10.1002/ca.22654 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth. Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2). Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Child, Preschool; Crowns; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentin; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 34280957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013039.pub2