-
Journal of Dentistry Nov 2017Aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical performance of sealants on various teeth in an evidence-based manner. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Aim of this systematic review was to assess the clinical performance of sealants on various teeth in an evidence-based manner.
SOURCES
Five databases were searched from inception to February 2017.
DATA
Randomized clinical studies on humans.
METHODS
After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane guidelines, Paule-Mandel random-effects meta-analyses of Relative Risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 16 randomized clinical trials with 2778 patients (male/female 49.1%/50.9%) and an average age of 8.4 years were included. No significant difference in either caries incidence of sealed teeth or sealant retention could be found according to (i) mouth side (right versus left), (ii) jaw (upper versus lower), (iii) and tooth type (1st permanent molar versus 2nd permanent molar/1st permanent molar versus 2nd deciduous molar/1st deciduous molar versus 2nd deciduous molar), based on evidence of very low to low quality. On the other side, compared to 1st permanent molars, sealed premolars were significantly less likely to develop caries (3 trials; RR=0.12; 95% CI=0.03 to 0.44; P=0.001) and less likely to experience loss of the sealant (5 trials; RR=0.33; 95% CI=0.20 to 0.54; P=0.001), both based on low to moderate quality evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of pit and fissure sealants does not seem to be negatively affected by mouth side, jaw, and tooth type, apart from the exception of a favorable retention on premolars.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Based on existing evidence, pit and fissure sealants can be effectively applied on any deciduous or permanent posterior teeth without adverse effects on their clinical performance.
Topics: Child; Databases, Factual; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Female; Humans; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Molar; Mouth; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 28797916
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.08.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental sealants were introduced in the 1960s to help prevent dental caries, mainly in the pits and fissures of occlusal tooth surfaces. Sealants act to prevent bacteria growth that can lead to dental decay. Evidence suggests that fissure sealants are effective in preventing caries in children and adolescents compared to no sealants. Effectiveness may, however, be related to caries incidence level of the population. This is an update of a review published in 2004, 2008 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different types of fissure sealants in preventing caries in occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth in children and adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 3 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 August 2016), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 3 August 2016. No restrictions were placed on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sealants with no sealant or a different type of sealant material for preventing caries of occlusal surfaces of premolar or molar teeth in children and adolescents aged up to 20 years. Studies required at least 12 months follow-up. We excluded studies that compared compomers to resins/composites.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth as odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR). We used mean difference (MD) for mean caries increment. All measures were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model for comparisons where there were more than three trials; otherwise we used the fixed-effect model. We used GRADE methods to assess evidence quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 trials that involved a total of 7924 children; seven trials were new for this update (1693 participants). Fifteen trials evaluated the effects of resin-based sealant versus no sealant (3620 participants in 14 studies plus 575 tooth pairs in one study); three trials with evaluated glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant (905 participants); and 24 trials evaluated one type of sealant versus another (4146 participants). Children were aged from 5 to 16 years. Trials rarely reported background exposure to fluoride of trial participants or baseline caries prevalence. Resin-based sealant versus no sealant: second-, third- and fourth-generation resin-based sealants prevented caries in first permanent molars in children aged 5 to 10 years (at 24 months follow-up: OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.19, 7 trials (5 published in the 1970s; 2 in the 2010s), 1548 children randomised, 1322 children evaluated; moderate-quality evidence). If we were to assume that 16% of the control tooth surfaces were decayed during 24 months of follow-up (160 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 5.2% (95% CI 3.13% to 7.37%). Similarly, assuming that 40% of control tooth surfaces were decayed (400 carious teeth per 1000), then applying a resin-based sealant would reduce the proportion of carious surfaces to 6.25% (95% CI 3.84% to 9.63%). If 70% of control tooth surfaces were decayed, there would be 19% decayed surfaces in the sealant group (95% CI 12.3% to 27.2%). This caries-preventive effect was maintained at longer follow-up but evidence quality and quantity was reduced (e.g. at 48 to 54 months of follow-up: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.28, 4 trials, 482 children evaluated; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45, 203 children evaluated). Although studies were generally well conducted, we assessed blinding of outcome assessment for caries at high risk of bias for all trials (blinding of outcome assessment is not possible in sealant studies because outcome assessors can see and identify sealant). Glass ionomer sealant versus no sealant: was evaluated by three studies. Results at 24 months were inconclusive (very low-quality evidence). One sealant versus another sealant: the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants is unknown (very low-quality evidence). We included 24 trials that directly compared two different sealant materials. Comparisons varied in terms of types of sealant assessed, outcome measures chosen and duration of follow-up. Adverse events: only four trials assessed adverse events. No adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Resin-based sealants applied on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars are effective for preventing caries in children and adolescents. Our review found moderate-quality evidence that resin-based sealants reduced caries by between 11% and 51% compared to no sealant, when measured at 24 months. Similar benefit was seen at timepoints up to 48 months; after longer follow-up, the quantity and quality of evidence was reduced. There was insufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of glass ionomer sealant or the relative effectiveness of different types of sealants. Information on adverse effects was limited but none occurred where this was reported. Further research with long follow-up is needed.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Caries; Dental Occlusion; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 28759120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5 -
The Journal of Clinical Pediatric... 2017The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to answer the focused question: Does the application of phosphoric acid, Er:YAG laser and air abrasion enamel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to answer the focused question: Does the application of phosphoric acid, Er:YAG laser and air abrasion enamel conditioning methods previous to the oclusal sealant application in human permanent molars influence the microleakage?
STUDY DESIGN
A literature research was carried out in the Pubmed Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases using with the MeSH terms and keyword search strategy. A supplemental hand search of the references of retrieved articles was also performed. Inclusion criteria comprised ex vivo studies (extracted teeth) with permanent human teeth that used chemical (phosphoric acid) or mechanical (Er:YAG laser and air abrasion) conditioning methods previous the sealant application. The studies should evaluate microleakage as an outcome. Meta-analysis pooled plot were obtained comparing the microleakage after pre-treatment with phosphoric acid, Er:YAG and air abrasion enamel conditioning for sealant application using RevMan software.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 164 articles, 55 records were excluded because they were duplicated. The analysis of titles and abstracts resulted in the exclusion of 105 studies. Four studies were included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis. According to the risk of bias evaluation, the four studies were considered low risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed that phosphoric acid had lower microleakage than Er:YAG laser (p < 0.001) and air abrasion (p < 0.001), with heterogeinity of I = 0% and I = 71%, respectively. It was not found statistical difference when compared phosphoric acid and phosphoric acid combined with Er:YAG laser and air abrasion (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports that the pretreatment with phosphoric acid leads lower microleakage in oclusal sealants than Er:YAG laser and air abrasion.
Topics: Air Abrasion, Dental; Dental Leakage; Dental Materials; Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Phosphoric Acids; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 28422595
DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.3.167 -
American Journal of Preventive Medicine Mar 2017A recently updated Community Guide systematic review of the effectiveness of school sealant programs (SSPs) still found strong evidence that SSPs reduced dental caries... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
A recently updated Community Guide systematic review of the effectiveness of school sealant programs (SSPs) still found strong evidence that SSPs reduced dental caries among schoolchildren. This follow-up systematic review updates SSP cost and benefit information from the original 2002 review.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Using Community Guide economic review methods, the authors searched the literature from January 2000 to November 20, 2014. The final body of evidence included 14 studies-ten from the current search and four with cost information from the 2002 review. Nine studies had information on SSP costs; six on sealant benefit (averted treatment costs and productivity losses); four on SSP net cost (cost minus benefit); and three on net cost to Medicaid of clinically delivered sealants. The authors imputed productivity losses and discounted costs/outcomes when this information was missing. The analysis, conducted in 2015, reported all values in 2014 U.S. dollars.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The median one-time SSP cost per tooth sealed was $11.64. Labor accounted for two thirds of costs, and time to provide sealants was a major cost driver. The median annual economic benefit was $6.29, suggesting that over 4 years the SSP benefit ($23.37 at a 3% discount rate) would exceed costs by $11.73 per sealed tooth. In addition, two of four economic models and all three analyses of Medicaid claims data found that SSP benefit to society exceeded SSP cost.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent evidence indicates the benefits of SSPs exceed their costs when SSPs target schools attended by a large number of high-risk children.
Topics: Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dental Caries; Humans; Medicaid; Models, Economic; Pit and Fissure Sealants; School Dentistry; United States
PubMed: 27865653
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Successful restorations in dental patients depend largely on the effective control of moisture and microbes during the procedure. The rubber dam technique has been one... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Successful restorations in dental patients depend largely on the effective control of moisture and microbes during the procedure. The rubber dam technique has been one of the most widely used isolation methods in dental restorative treatments. The evidence on the effects of rubber dam usage on the longevity of dental restorations is conflicting. Therefore, it is important to summarise the available evidence to determine the effects of this method.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of rubber dam isolation compared with other types of isolation used for direct and indirect restorative treatments in dental patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 17 August 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library (searched 17 August 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 August 2016), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 17 August 2016), SciELO BIREME Virtual Health Library (1998 to 17 August 2016), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM, in Chinese) (1978 to 30 August 2016), VIP (in Chinese) (1989 to 30 August 2016), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, in Chinese) (1994 to 30 August 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese) for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth trials) assessing the effects of rubber dam isolation for restorative treatments in dental patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies that analysed 1270 participants (among which 233 participants were lost to follow-up). All the included studies were at high risk of bias. We excluded one trial from the analysis due to inconsistencies in the presented data.The results indicated that dental restorations had a significantly higher survival rate in the rubber dam isolation group compared to the cotton roll isolation group at six months in participants receiving composite restorative treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37, very low-quality evidence). It also showed that the rubber dam group had a lower risk of failure at two years in children undergoing proximal atraumatic restorative treatment in primary molars (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, very low-quality evidence). One trial reported limited data showing that rubber dam usage during fissure sealing might shorten the treatment time. None of the included studies mentioned adverse effects or reported the direct cost of the treatment, or the level of patient acceptance/satisfaction. There was also no evidence evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on the quality of the restorations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found some very low-quality evidence, from single studies, suggesting that rubber dam usage in dental direct restorative treatments may lead to a lower failure rate of the restorations, compared with the failure rate for cotton roll usage. Further high quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.
PubMed: 27648846
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009858.pub2 -
PloS One 2016Glass-ionomers are traditionally regarded to be inferior to resin as fissure sealants in protecting teeth from dental caries, due to their comparatively lower retention... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glass-ionomers are traditionally regarded to be inferior to resin as fissure sealants in protecting teeth from dental caries, due to their comparatively lower retention rate. Unlike low-viscosity glass-ionomers, high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements (HVGIC) are placed as sealants by pressing the material into pits and fissures with a petroleum-jelly-coated index finger. Hence, HVGIC sealants are assumed to penetrate pits and fissures deeper, resulting in a higher material retention rate, which may increase its caries-preventive effect.
METHODS
The aim of this review was to answer the question as to whether, in patients with fully erupted permanent molar teeth, HVGIC based fissure sealants are less effective to protect against dental carious lesions in occlusal pits and fissures than resin-based fissure sealants? A systematic literature search in eight databases was conducted. Heterogeneity of accepted trials and imprecision of the established evidence were assessed. Extracted sufficiently homogenous datasets were pooled by use of a random-effects meta-analysis. Internal trial validity was evaluated. The protocol of this systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO / Nr.: CRD42015016007).
RESULTS
Seven clinical trials were provisionally included for further review. Of these, one was excluded. Seven trial reports reporting on six trials were accepted. From these, 11 datasets were extracted and pooled in four meta-analyses. The results suggest no statistically significant differences after up to 48 months and borderline significant differences in favour of HVGIC sealants after 60 months (RR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.95; p = 0.04 / RD -0.07; 95% CI: -0.14, -0.01). The point estimates and upper confidence levels after 24, 36, 48 and 60 months of RR 1.36; RR 0.90; RR 0.62; RR 0.29 and 2.78; 1.67; 1.21; 0.95, respectively, further suggest a chronological trend in favour of HVGIC above resin-based sealants. The internal trial validity was judged to be low and the bias risk high for all trials. Imprecision of results was considered too high for clinical guidance.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that: (i) Inferiority claims against HVGIC in comparison to resin-based sealants as current gold-standard are not supported by the clinical evidence; (ii) The clinical evidence suggests similar caries-preventive efficacy of HVGIC and resin-based sealants after a period of 48 months in permanent molar teeth but remains challenged by high bias risk; (iii) Evidence concerning a possible superiority of HVGIC above resin-based sealants after 60 months is poor (even if the high bias risk is disregarded) due to imprecision and requires corroboration through future research.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Child; Dental Caries; Female; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Resin Cements; Silicon Dioxide; Tooth
PubMed: 26799812
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146512 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and fluoride varnishes are much used preventive options for caries. Although the effectiveness of sealants and fluoride varnishes for controlling caries as compared with no intervention has been demonstrated in clinical trials and summarised in systematic reviews, the relative effectiveness of these two interventions remains unclear. This review is an update of one first published in 2006 and last updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective • To evaluate the relative effectiveness of fissure sealants compared with fluoride varnishes, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes compared with fluoride varnishes alone, for preventing dental caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Secondary objectives • To evaluate whether effectiveness is influenced by sealant material type and length of follow-up.• To document and report on data concerning adverse events associated with sealants and fluoride varnishes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 18 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 18 December 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 18 December 2015). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching electronic databases. We screened the reference lists of identified trials and review articles for additional relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing fissure sealants, or fissure sealants together with fluoride varnishes, versus fluoride varnishes for preventing caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent premolar or molar teeth, in participants younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. 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 and glass ionomer-based sealant: glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer) and different follow-up periods. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for caries or no caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, we used the Becker-Balagtas odds ratio. For continuous outcomes and data, we used means and standard deviations to obtain mean differences. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods.We conducted meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model, as data from only two studies were combined. We had planned to conduct meta-analyses using a random-effects model when more than three trials were included in the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included eight trials with 1746 participants (four of the trials were new since the 2010 update). Seven trials (1127 participants) contributed to the analyses, and children involved were five to 10 years of age at the start of the trial. Sealant versus fluoride varnish Resin-based fissure sealants compared with fluoride varnishes Four trials evaluated this comparison (three of them contributing to the analyses). Compared with fluoride varnish, resin-based sealants prevented more caries in first permanent molars at two-year follow-up (two studies in the meta-analysis with pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.94; P value = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 358 children evaluated). We assessed the body of evidence as low quality. The caries-preventive benefit for sealants was maintained at longer follow-up in one trial at high risk of bias: 26.6% of sealant teeth and 55.8% of fluoride-varnished teeth had developed caries when 75 children were evaluated at nine years of follow-up. Glass ionomer-based sealants compared with fluoride varnishes Three trials evaluated this comparison: one trial with chemically cured glass ionomer and two with resin-modified glass ionomer. Researchers reported similar caries increment between study groups regardless of which glass ionomer material was used in a trial. Study designs were clinically diverse, and meta-analysis could not be conducted. The body of evidence was assessed as of very low quality. Sealant together with fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish alone One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found a significant difference in favour of resin-based fissure sealant together with fluoride varnish compared with fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55). The body of evidence was assessed as low quality. Adverse events Three trials (two with resin-based sealant material and one with resin-modified glass ionomer) reported that no adverse events resulted from use of sealants or fluoride varnishes. The other five studies did not mention adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, scarce and clinically diverse data are available on the comparison of sealants and fluoride varnish applications; therefore it is not possible to draw clear conclusions about possible differences in effectiveness for preventing or controlling dental caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars. The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those of the last update (in 2010). We found some low-quality evidence suggesting the superiority of resin-based fissure sealants over fluoride varnish applications for preventing occlusal caries in permanent molars, and other low-quality evidence for benefits of resin-based sealant and fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish alone. Regarding glass ionomer sealant versus fluoride varnish comparisons, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low and could draw no conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Cariostatic Agents; Child; Dental Caries; Fluorides, Topical; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26780162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003067.pub4 -
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic... Oct 2015Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.
RESULTS
After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.
CONCLUSION
The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.
PubMed: 26557634
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/15640.6589 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Proximal dental lesions, limited to dentine, are traditionally treated by invasive (drill and fill) means. Non-invasive alternatives (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Proximal dental lesions, limited to dentine, are traditionally treated by invasive (drill and fill) means. Non-invasive alternatives (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing) might avoid substance loss but their effectiveness depends on patients' adherence. Recently, micro-invasive approaches for treating proximal caries lesions have been tried. These interventions install a barrier either on top (sealing) or within (infiltrating) the lesion. Different methods and materials are currently available for micro-invasive treatments, such as sealing via resin sealants, (polyurethane) patches/tapes, glass ionomer cements (GIC) or resin infiltration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of micro-invasive treatments for managing proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent dentition in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 31 December 2014: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, ZETOC Conference Proceedings, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials to 1 October 2014. There were no language or date restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of at least six months' duration that compared micro-invasive treatments for managing non-cavitated proximal dental decay in primary teeth, permanent teeth or both, versus non-invasive measures, invasive means, no intervention or placebo. We also included studies that compared different types of micro-invasive treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to evaluate risk of bias and synthesise data. We conducted meta-analyses with the random-effects model, using the Becker-Balagtas method to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for lesion progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, which randomised 365 participants. The trials all used a split-mouth design, some with more than one pair of lesions treated within the same participant. Studies took place in university or dental public health clinics in Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Thailand, Greenland and Chile. Six studies evaluated the effects of micro-invasive treatments in the permanent dentition and two studies on the primary dentition, with caries risk ranging from low to high. Investigators measured caries risk in different studies either by caries experience alone or by using the Cariogram programme, which combines eight contributing factors, including caries experience, diet, saliva and other factors related to caries. The follow-up period in the trials ranged from one to three years. All studies used lesion progression as the primary outcome, evaluating it by different methods of reading radiographs. Four studies received industry support to carry out the research, with one of them being carried out by inventors of the intervention.We judged seven studies to be at high overall risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. We evaluated intervention effects for all micro-invasive therapies and analysed subgroups according to the different treatment methods reported in the included studies.Our meta-analysis, which pooled the most sensitive set of data (in terms of measurement method) from studies presenting data in a format suitable for meta-analysis, showed that micro-invasive treatment significantly reduced the odds of lesion progression compared with non-invasive treatment (e.g fluoride varnish) or oral hygiene advice (e.g to floss) (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.41; 602 lesions; seven studies; I(2) = 32%). There was no evidence of subgroup differences (P = 0.36).The four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment. Most studies did not report on any further outcomes.We assessed the quality of evidence for micro-invasive treatments as moderate. It remains unclear which micro-invasive treatment is more advantageous, or if certain clinical conditions or patient characteristics are better suited for micro-invasive treatments than others.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence shows that micro-invasive treatment of proximal caries lesions arrests non-cavitated enamel and initial dentinal lesions (limited to outer third of dentine, based on radiograph) and is significantly more effective than non-invasive professional treatment (e.g. fluoride varnish) or advice (e.g. to floss). We can be moderately confident that further research is unlikely to substantially change the estimate of effect. Due to the small number of studies, it does remain unclear which micro-invasive technique offers the greatest benefit, or whether the effects of micro-invasive treatment confer greater or lesser benefit according to different clinical or patient considerations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Etching; Dentition, Permanent; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Male; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resins, Synthetic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 26545080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010431.pub2 -
BMC Oral Health Sep 2015It is important for Dental Professionals to consider the evidence for the effectiveness of the preventive strategies used to maintain good oral health and reduce the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is important for Dental Professionals to consider the evidence for the effectiveness of the preventive strategies used to maintain good oral health and reduce the risk of caries in their patients. Whilst many of the traditional preventive activities, including the recommendation and use of fluoride products and the placement of fissure sealants have a wealth of clinical evidence to support their use, some of the newer preventive agents have a more limited evidence base. In order to investigate the level of scientific support behind one such technology, a systematic literature review was carried out to assess the effectiveness of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) and Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) in the prevention and treatment of early dental caries.
METHODS
A broad search strategy using Medline via OvidSP and EMBASE was performed in order to capture all published studies to related Casein Phosphopeptide-Amorphous Calcium Phosphate. In addition to the above searches the terms "CPP ACP" and "casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium phosphate" were searched using PREMEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials of participants of any age, comparing the use of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) or Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) to a routine oral care regimen and reporting recognised clinical outcome measures for early caries lesions. Only research studies in English were selected.
RESULTS
7576 articles were identified, but the majority were duplicates. Once these were removed 172 articles were inspected and the focus on 'CPP-ACP formulations of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) and Tooth Mousse Plus (MI Paste Plus) resulted in 29 articles being selected, and of these 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered acceptable for the systematic review.
DISCUSSION
The overall findings of this review did not show any significant benefits of using Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) products over brushing with a fluoride toothpaste for the prevention of early dental caries. With regard to the regression of white spot lesions in orthodontic patients there is a tendency towards a benefit for the use of Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) but the quality of evidence is limited. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of Tooth Mousse Plus® (MI Paste Plus) over Tooth Mousse (MI Paste) at this time.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required prior to the widespread recommendation of Tooth Mousse products for the prevention and treatment of early dental caries in the general population.
Topics: Cariostatic Agents; Caseins; Dental Caries; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Toothpastes
PubMed: 26408042
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0095-6