-
European Archives of Paediatric... Feb 2022To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the treatment options for teeth in children affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation?'
METHODS
An electronic search of the following electronic databases was completed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Google Scholar and Open Grey identifying studies from 1980 to 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The studies were screened, data extracted and calibration was completed by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Of 6220 potential articles, 34 studies were included. Twenty studies investigated management of molars with fissure sealants, glass ionomer cement, polyacid modified resin composite, composite resin, amalgam, preformed metal crowns, laboratory-manufactured crowns and extractions. In four articles management of incisors with microabrasion, resin-infiltration and a combination of approaches was reported. Eight studies looked at strategies to mineralise MIH-affected teeth and/or reduce hypersensitivity. Two studies investigated patient-centred outcomes following treatment. Due to the heterogeneity between the studies, meta-analysis was not performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of resin-based fissure sealants, preformed metal crowns, direct composite resin restorations and laboratory-made restorations can be recommended for MIH-affected molars. There is insufficient evidence to support specific approaches for the management of affected incisors. Products containing CPP-ACP may be beneficial for MIH-affected teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 34110615
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-021-00635-0 -
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Jan 2022To identify the best available approach to avoid initial caries lesions progression in primary teeth. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To identify the best available approach to avoid initial caries lesions progression in primary teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Search was performed in MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase and CENTRAL databases until March 2021. Studies compared treatment options to avoid the initial caries lesion progression with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Network meta-analyses were conducted considering the non-progression of caries lesions as an outcome.
RESULTS
Potentially eligible studies were screened ( = 2820) and eleven were included. Six studies evaluated the use of fluoride varnish, resin infiltration, sealing, and toothbrushing/flossing on proximal initial caries lesions. When considering occlusal surfaces, only two studies evaluating the ozone gas, fluoride varnish, resin infiltration, and sealants were included. For buccal/lingual surfaces, three studies evaluating toothbrushing, CPP-ACP paste, fluoride varnish, and resin infiltration were included. For all types of surfaces, the resin infiltration showed the best probability to avoid the progression of initial caries lesions.
CONCLUSION
The limited number of included studies, most with a high risk of bias and lack of hard outcomes, such as frank cavitation, makes it not feasible to recommend a specific management approach for initial caries lesion control in primary teeth with a high certainty of evidence. PROSPERO: #CRD42016037781.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 34102948
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2021.1928748 -
Swiss Dental Journal Dec 2021The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases...
The objective was to systematically analyse clinical studies on restorative procedures for teeth affected by molar-incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. Only retrospective and prospective clinical studies dealing with sealing or restoration of MIH-affected teeth were included. The language was restricted to English or German. Thirteen of 36 potentially eligible studies were included focusing on the following subjects: extension of enamel preparation, adhesive procedures prior to restoration, application of fissure sealants as well as restoration with conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC), resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC), resin composites, and indirect restorations. Seven clinical studies were controlled trials. However, only two included MIH-unaffected teeth as control. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs (e.g. severity of MIH or the restorative materials investigated). Based on the present analysis, the annual failure rates were in average 21% for fissure sealants, 22% for GIC, 1-6% for RMGIC, 13-32% for resin composites, and 0-7% for indirect restorations. In summary, only few tendencies can be deduced from this review at a low level of evidence (number of studies): 1) preparation margins in sound enamel seem to be superior to preparations in hypomineralised enamel (1 study), 2) RMGIC seems to be superior to GIC (3 studies), 3) resin composites may be used for restoring all severities of MIH (7 studies) with self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems generally not performing differently (3 studies), and 4) in cases of severe MIH, indirect restorations showed a good clinical success (4 studies).
Topics: Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33764037
DOI: 10.61872/sdj-2021-12-764 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2021Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels.
METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings.
RESULTS
In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15-0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20-0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14-0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14-0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01-8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07-0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01-8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.37).
CONCLUSION
Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 33413327
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01364-4 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Dec 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ozone therapy for treating dental caries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of ozone therapy for treating dental caries.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 8 databases, from inception to April 4, 2020 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO, and OpenGrey). Primary outcome measures were antimicrobial effect and adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to evaluate methodological quality of included RCTs and GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We used the Review Manager software to conduct meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs comparing ozone therapy with no ozone, chlorhexidine digluconate, fissure sealants (alone and added to ozone), and fluoride. Considering primary outcomes, ozone therapy showed (a) lower reduction in the bacterial number than chlorhexidine digluconate in children (mean difference [MD]: -5.65 [-9.79 to -1.51]), but no difference was observed in adults (MD: -0.10 [-1.07 to 0.88]); (b) higher reduction in the bacterial number than sealant (MD: 12.60 [3.86-21.34]), but no difference was observed after final excavation (MD: -0.00 [-0.01 to 0.01]). Regarding safety of ozone therapy, results from individual studies presented no adverse events during or after treatment. Most of these results are imprecise and should be interpreted with caution because of clinical and methodological concerns, small sample size, and wide confidence interval, precluding to determine the real effect direction.
CONCLUSION
Based on a very low certainty of evidence, there is not enough support from published RCTs to recommend the use of ozone for the treatment of dental caries. Well-conducted studies should be encouraged, measuring mainly the antimicrobial effects of ozone therapy at long term and following the recommendations of the CONSORT statement for the reporting of RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Caries; Fluorides; Humans; Ozone; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 33303100
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101472 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children above the age of six years and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children above the age of six years and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and fluoride varnishes are much used to prevent caries. As the effectiveness of both interventions in controlling caries as compared with no intervention has been demonstrated previously, this review aimed to evaluate their relative effectiveness. It updates a review published originally in 2006 and updated in 2010 and in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of dental sealants (i.e. fissure sealant) compared with fluoride varnishes, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes compared with fluoride varnishes alone, for preventing dental caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate whether effectiveness is influenced by sealant material type and length of follow-up, document and report on data concerning adverse events associated with sealants and fluoride varnishes, and report the cost effectiveness of dental sealants versus fluoride varnish in caries prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2020) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2020). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing fissure sealants, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes, versus fluoride varnishes, for preventing caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent posterior teeth (i.e. premolar or molar teeth), in participants younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We attempted to contact study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We grouped and analysed studies on the basis of sealant material type: resin-based sealant or glass ionomer-based sealant (glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer sealant), and different follow-up periods. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for risk of caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, we used the Becker-Balagtas OR. One cluster-randomised trial provided precise estimates in terms of risk ratio (RR), which we used. For continuous outcomes and data, we used means and standard deviations to obtain mean differences (MD). For meta-analysis, we used the random-effects model when we combined data from four or more studies. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials with 3374 participants aged five to 10 years when trials started. Three trials are new since the 2016 update. Two trials did not contribute data to our analysis. Sealant versus fluoride varnish Resin-based fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes Seven trials evaluated this comparison (five contributing data). We are uncertain if resin-based sealants may be better than fluoride varnish, or vice versa, for preventing caries in first permanent molars at two to three years' follow-up (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19; I = 84%; 4 studies, 1683 children evaluated). One study measuring decayed, missing and filled permanent surfaces (DMFS) and decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) increment at two years suggested a small benefit for fissure sealant (DMFS MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; DMFT MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 542 participants), though this may not be clinically significant. One small study, at high risk of bias, reported a benefit for sealant after four years in preventing caries (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84; 75 children) and at nine years (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 75 children). We assessed each of these results as having very low certainty. Glass ionomer-based sealants versus fluoride varnishes Three trials evaluated this comparison: one trial with chemically cured glass ionomer and two with resin-modified glass ionomer. Studies were clinically diverse, so we did not conduct a meta-analysis. In general, the studies found no benefit of one intervention over another at one, two and three years, although one study, which also included oral health education, suggested a benefit from sealants over varnish for children at high risk of caries. We assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Sealant plus fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish alone One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found in favour of resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55), which represented a clinically meaningful effect of a 77% reduction in caries after two years; however, we assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Adverse events Five trials (1801 participants) (four using resin-based sealant material and one using resin-modified glass ionomer) reported that no adverse events resulted from use of sealants or fluoride varnishes over one to nine years. The other studies did not mention adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Applying fluoride varnish or resin-based fissure sealants to first permanent molars helps prevent occlusal caries, but it has not been possible in this review to reach reliable conclusions about which one is better to apply. The available studies do not suggest either intervention is superior, but we assessed this evidence as having very low certainty. We found very low-certainty evidence that placing resin-based sealant as well as applying fluoride varnish works better than applying fluoride varnish alone. Fourteen studies are currently ongoing and their findings may allow us to draw firmer conclusions about whether sealants and varnish work equally well or whether one is better than the other.
Topics: Adolescent; Bias; Bicuspid; Cariostatic Agents; Child; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Fluorides, Topical; Humans; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33142363
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003067.pub5 -
BMJ Open Oct 2020To assess the effectiveness of lasers (at sub-ablative parameters) in reducing caries incidence compared with traditional prophylactic interventions (TPIs) when used...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of lasers (at sub-ablative parameters) in reducing caries incidence compared with traditional prophylactic interventions (TPIs) when used alone or together with other TPIs such as pits and fissures sealant or fluoride gels or varnishes.
DESIGN
A systematic review. Data sources include Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (December 2019).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Only randomised trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) dealing with prophylactic lasers use (vs TPI or untreated teeth) were considered as eligible. We excluded in vitro and ex vivo studies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed adopting the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data on caries incidence, sealant retention, fluoride uptake, adverse events, treatment duration, patients' discomfort and cost-effectiveness ratio was extracted.
DATA ANALYSIS
Extracted data were presented narratively due to the heterogeneity of included studies.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs and two CCTs, all with an evident risk of bias, met inclusion criteria, pooling together 269 individuals and 1628 teeth. CO, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG), erbium, chromium: yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) and Argon lasers were used. In the permanent dentition, lasers only when used in combination with TPIs were effective in reducing caries when compared with untreated teeth (risk ratio (RR)=0.44 (0.20-0.97); Er:YAG laser) or with TPIs used alone (RR=0.39 (0.22-0.71); CO laser). Moreover, Argon laser significantly improved the fluoride uptake into the enamel surfaces (ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) tests: 95%, p<0.0001). Likewise, sealant retention improved when acid etching was performed on previously irradiated enamel fissures by CO laser (RR=0.63 (0.38-1.04)) or Er:YAG laser (RR=0.54 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.87)). In addition, laser resulted safe and well tolerated by patients.
CONCLUSION
Despite some positive indications, an inadequate level of evidence was found in the included studies concerning the lasers' effectiveness in preventing caries. Further studies with a higher methodological quality level are required.
Topics: Dental Caries; Fluorides; Humans; Laser Therapy; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 33115895
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038638 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Aug 2020To describe and summarize evidence on economic evaluations (EEs) of primary caries prevention in preschool children aged 2 to 5 years and to evaluate the reporting...
OBJECTIVES
To describe and summarize evidence on economic evaluations (EEs) of primary caries prevention in preschool children aged 2 to 5 years and to evaluate the reporting quality of full EE studies using a quality assessment tool.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. Full and partial EEs were included. The reporting quality of full EE studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 808 studies were identified, and 39 were included in the review. Most papers were published between 2000 and 2017 and originated in the United States and the United Kingdom. The most common type of intervention investigated was a complex multicomponent intervention, followed by water fluoridation. Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were the most frequently used types of EE. One study employed cost-utility analysis. The proportion of full EEs increased over time. The parameters not reported well included study perspective, baseline year, sensitivity analysis, and discount rate. The CHEERS items that were most often unmet were characterizing uncertainty, study perspective, study parameters, and estimating resources and costs.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the past 2 decades, there has been an increase in the number of EEs of caries prevention interventions in preschool children. There was inconsistency in how EEs were conducted and reported. Lack of preference-based health-related quality-of-life measure utilization in the field was identified. The use of appropriate study methodologies and greater attention to recommended EE design are required to further improve quality.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dental Caries; Fluoridation; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Primary Prevention; United Kingdom; United States
PubMed: 32828224
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1823 -
General Dentistry 2020Despite the worldwide decline in dental caries, pit and fissure caries remains a cause of concern, and application of pit and fissure sealants is an important preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite the worldwide decline in dental caries, pit and fissure caries remains a cause of concern, and application of pit and fissure sealants is an important preventive measure. Due to the high wear rate of conventional unfilled sealants, various other materials have been tested for fissure sealing. The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of flowable composite resins as a fissure sealant to that of conventional pit and fissure sealants. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. Clinical trials comparing the efficacy of flowable composite resins as fissure sealants to that of conventional pit and fissure sealants on permanent teeth with a follow-up of 12 or 24 months were included in this meta-analysis. The retention rates of the 2 groups were evaluated with a random-effects model using Cochrane Reviews software (Cochrane RevMan, version 5.3). Seven studies were included in the final review. Flowable composite resins proved to be a significantly better fissure-sealing material after 1 year of follow-up (odds ratio = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.22-1.01; P = 0.05; degree of inconsistency [I] = 59%). The retention rates of flowable composite resins at the end of 2 years were similar to those of conventional pit and fissure sealants (odds ratio = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.13-3.95; P = 0.70; I = 85%). Flowable composite resins proved to be a superior alternative to conventional sealants after 1 year of follow-up; however, no such difference between the 2 groups was observed after 2 years of follow-up. Further longitudinal studies should be conducted to evaluate the long-term retention and efficacy of flowable composite resins in fissure sealing.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 32597778
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Jun 2020The use of pit and fissure sealants have been well supported in permanent teeth, but no concrete evidence is available to support this procedure in primary molars. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The use of pit and fissure sealants have been well supported in permanent teeth, but no concrete evidence is available to support this procedure in primary molars. This review aims to systematically assess randomized controlled trials and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of different sealants in prevention and arrest of the pit and fissure occlusal caries in primary molars of children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2018. Seven studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, and evaluated the certainty in the evidence adopting the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach. Odds ratio and retention rate of different sealants were recalculated and analyzed.
RESULTS
This review identified no significant difference in the overall caries incidence and progression when evaluated over 24 months between (1) resin-based sealant (RBS) and glass ionomer sealants (GIS) or resin-modified GIS; (2) conventional and newly developed RBS; (3) autopolymerized and light-polymerized RBS; (4) RBS with topical fluoride application and topical fluoride alone; and (5) RBS with topical fluoride application and resin infiltration with topical fluoride application. The pooled estimates of the mean retention rates of RBS and GIS on primary molars over an 18-months period were 85.94% and 23.18%, respectively. The certainty in the evidence of each outcome was determined as low or very low mainly because of high risk of overall bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSION
There are currently insufficient well-controlled randomized controlled clinical trials to determine whether sealants are beneficial in preventing or arresting noncavitated occlusal caries in the primary molars.
Topics: Child; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Fluorides, Topical; Humans; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 32473795
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101404