-
BMC Oral Health Apr 2015Untreated dentin caries in primary teeth is commonly found in preschool children worldwide. Recently, the use of simple non-surgical approaches to manage the situation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Untreated dentin caries in primary teeth is commonly found in preschool children worldwide. Recently, the use of simple non-surgical approaches to manage the situation has been advocated. The aim of the study was to systematically review and evaluate the literature on effectiveness of non-surgical methods in arresting or slowing down the progression of active dentin caries in primary teeth in preschool children.
METHODS
A systematic search of the main electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE) was conducted to identify peer reviewed papers published in English in the years 1947-2014. Keywords and MeSH terms used in the search were "dental caries", "primary dentition" and various non-surgical treatments (fluoride, sealant, resin infiltration, xylitol, chlorhexidine, CPP-ACP, ozone, etc.). The inclusion criteria were clinical studies conducted in children under 6 years old, and reported findings on caries arrest or caries progression in primary teeth. Retrieved papers were read by two reviewers independently to assess suitability for inclusion, and the final decision was made by consensus. Quality of the included studies was assessed and data were extracted for analysis.
RESULTS
The search identified 323 papers for screening. Among these, 290 papers did not satisfy the study inclusion criteria. Consequently, 33 full papers were retrieved and reviewed. Finally, 4 studies were included. Three studies reported that topical applications of silver diammine fluoride (SDF) solution could arrest dentin caries in preschool children. One study supported that having a daily toothbrushing exercise in kindergarten using toothpaste with 1000 ppm fluoride could stabilize the caries situation in young children.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of SDF applications or daily toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste in arresting or slowing down the progression of active dentin caries in primary teeth in preschool children. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Cariostatic Agents; Child, Preschool; Dental Caries; Dentin; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth Remineralization; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 25888484
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0033-7 -
Medical Principles and Practice :... 2015The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vivo scientific evidence of the ability of resin infiltration (RI) to arrest non-cavitated caries lesions. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vivo scientific evidence of the ability of resin infiltration (RI) to arrest non-cavitated caries lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the in vivo effect of RI versus placebo or other preventive treatment on the progression of caries lesions. The keywords used were 'resin infiltration, dental caries', 'resin infiltration, carious lesions', 'resin infiltration, caries lesions', 'caries infiltration' and 'Icon DMG' with the 'clinical trial' filter activated. Among the 14 articles originally identified with these keywords, only 4 (related to 3 different in vivo studies) were included for this review.
RESULTS
All 4 articles reported on proximal caries lesions. One study had been conducted on 48 high-caries-risk children while the other 3 (n = 22, 22 and 39, respectively) concerned moderate- and low-caries-risk adolescents and adults. The quality of the studies was assessed to be high with respect to randomization, split-mouth design and blinding. All the included studies showed significant differences in caries progression between test and control/placebo groups, indicating that RI may inhibit the carious process.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review revealed that RI appeared to be an effective method to arrest the progression of non-cavitated caries lesions. Additional, long-term studies are required.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cariostatic Agents; Child; Dental Caries; Disease Progression; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25661012
DOI: 10.1159/000371709 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases from their inception dates up to November 2013: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. We also undertook a grey literature search and searched the reference list of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in undertaking clinical tasks traditionally performed by a dentist.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study and two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence from the included studies, according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we gave a narrative description of the results.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore.Of the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001).One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.All studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.
Topics: Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Auxiliaries; Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentists; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25140869
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010076.pub2