-
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 -
Dentistry Journal Jun 2018Even in the 21st century, dental caries is considered a global burden, severely upsetting the health and quality of life of those affected. Apart from the usage of... (Review)
Review
Even in the 21st century, dental caries is considered a global burden, severely upsetting the health and quality of life of those affected. Apart from the usage of fluoride and regular oral hygiene, one of the most important prophylactic approaches against the occurrence of caries is the sealing of pits and fissures. However, the rapid progress of new materials and applications for sealing pits and fissures also raises new questions about their correct application. Recent literature on pit and fissure sealing, caries prevention, as well as caries risk assessment for both children and adults was reviewed. This report provides a general overview of pit and fissure sealing, the materials used for sealing occlusal surfaces, as well as indications and possible side effects. The conclusions are that sealing pit and fissures of primary and permanent teeth is an effective method for preventing and arresting caries. However, regular checkups must be conducted to avoid advanced tooth decay attributable to leakages in the sealing.
PubMed: 29895726
DOI: 10.3390/dj6020018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pit and fissure sealants are plastic materials that are used to seal deep pits and fissures on the occlusal surfaces of teeth, where decay occurs most often in children and adolescents. Deep pits and fissures can retain food debris and bacteria, making them difficult to clean, thereby causing them to be more susceptible to dental caries. The application of a pit and fissure sealant, a non-invasive preventive approach, can prevent dental caries by forming a protective barrier that reduces food entrapment and bacterial growth. Though moderate-certainty evidence shows that sealants are effective in preventing caries in permanent teeth, the effectiveness of applying pit and fissure sealants to primary teeth has yet to be established.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.
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 the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children). Three studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. We included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence. Only one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Fluorides; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 35146744
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012981.pub2 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2022Children's dental health has become the main concern, due to the increase in caries prevalence amongst children. Pit and fissure sealant (PFS) and fluoride varnish (FV)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Children's dental health has become the main concern, due to the increase in caries prevalence amongst children. Pit and fissure sealant (PFS) and fluoride varnish (FV) are effective measures for preventing dental caries. However, the clinical efficacy of these interventions when compared to one another is uncertain. The aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare pit and fissure sealants with fluoride varnish for caries prevention of first permanent molars among schoolchildren. This is a meta-Analysis, which involves randomized control trials that compare the effectiveness of PFS with FV within 24 months of follow-up. Five databases were searched from 1990 to 2019 to identify studies published in Arabic or English language. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. A total number of 4 studies were included with overall of 1249 children in both groups. Three included trial reported caries increment of first permanent molars (FPM) with 24 months of follow-up, there was no statistical significance (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.35; = 0.26 I2 = 89%). As regards DMFS increment, the analysis showed no statistical differences between FV and PFS in terms of lowering DMFS increment (MD: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.21). Findings of this meta-analysis proved there is no significant difference between PFS and FV in caries prevention efficacy of FPMs at 2 years' follow-up, emphasizing the use of FV since it is more affordable and easier to apply.
Topics: Child; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Fluorides, Topical; Fluorides; Dental Caries
PubMed: 36263239
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8635254 -
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 -
European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry Sep 2018Determining the best choice between the different sealant materials might be complicated. The products that dentists can choose have different properties, such as... (Review)
Review
Determining the best choice between the different sealant materials might be complicated. The products that dentists can choose have different properties, such as caries' preventive effect, fluoride release and retention rate. According to the literature, fissure sealant materials fall into two main categories: resin-based sealants and glass ionomer sealants. Even if the "fluoride-releasing resin sealants" are better than "glass ionomer", with regards to retention of the material, the literature shows that their effectiveness in preventing fissure caries in permanent molars does not differ significantly over 24 months.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Child; Dental Caries; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 30063160
DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.03.15 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Oct 2022This umbrella review systematically appraised published systematic reviews on Minimal Intervention Dentistry interventions carried out to manage dentine carious primary...
PURPOSE
This umbrella review systematically appraised published systematic reviews on Minimal Intervention Dentistry interventions carried out to manage dentine carious primary teeth to determine how best to translate the available evidence into practice, and to provide recommendations for what requires further research.
METHOD
An experienced information specialist searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and the NIHR Journals Library. In addition, the PROSPERO database was searched to identify forthcoming systematic reviews. Searches were built around the following four concepts: primary teeth AND caries/carious lesion AND Minimal Intervention Dentistry AND systematic review/meta-analysis. Searches were restricted to English language, systematic reviews with/without meta-analyses published between January 2000 and August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts. Interventions included involved no dentine carious tissue removal (fissure sealants, resin infiltration, topical application of 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride, and Hall Technique), non-restorative caries control, and selective removal of carious tissue involving both stepwise excavation and atraumatic restorative treatment. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers. Studies overlap was calculated using corrected covered area.
RESULTS
Eighteen systematic reviews were included in total; 8 assessed the caries arresting effects of 38% Silver Demine Fluoride (SDF), 1 on the Hall Technique (HT), 1 on selective removal of carious tissue, and eight investigated interventions using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Included systematic reviews were published between 2006 and 2020, covering a defined time frame of included randomised controlled trials ranging from 1969 to 2018. Systematic reviews assessed the sealing efficacy of fissure sealants and resin infiltration in carious primary teeth were excluded due to pooled data reporting on caries arrest in both enamel and outer third of dentine with the majority of these carious lesions being limited to enamel. Therefore, fissure sealants and resin infiltration are not recommended for the management of dentinal caries lesions in primary teeth. Topical application of 38% SDF showed a significant caries arrest effect in primary teeth (p < 0.05), and its success rate in arresting dental caries increased when it was applied twice (range between 53 and 91%) rather than once a year (range between 31 and 79%). Data on HT were limited and revealed that preformed metal crowns placed using the HT were likely to reduce discomfort at time of treatment, the risk of major failure (pulp treatment or extraction needed) and pain compared to conventional restorations. Selective removal of carious tissue particularly in deep carious lesions has significantly reduced the risk of pulp exposure (77% and 69% risk reduction with one-step selective caries removal and stepwise excavation, respectively). ART showed higher success rate when placed in single surface compared to multi-surface cavities (86% and 48.7-88%, respectively, over 3 years follow-up).
CONCLUSION
Minimal Intervention Dentistry techniques, namely 38% SDF, HT, selective removal of carious tissue, and ART for single surface cavity, appear to be effective in arresting the progress of dentinal caries in primary teeth when compared to no treatment, or conventional restorations. There is clear need to increase the emphasis on considering these techniques for managing carious primary teeth as a mainstream option rather than a compromise option in circumstances where the conventional approach is not possible due to cooperation or cost.
Topics: Humans; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Caries; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 34784027
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-021-00675-6 -
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 -
Community Dentistry and Oral... Jun 2007This paper describes early findings of evaluations of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) conducted by the Detroit Center for Research on...
This paper describes early findings of evaluations of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) conducted by the Detroit Center for Research on Oral Health Disparities (DCR-OHD). The lack of consistency among the contemporary criteria systems limits the comparability of outcomes measured in epidemiological and clinical studies. The ICDAS criteria were developed by an international team of caries researchers to integrate several new criteria systems into one standard system for caries detection and assessment. Using ICDAS in the DCR-OHD cohort study, dental examiners first determined whether a clean and dry tooth surface is sound, sealed, restored, crowned, or missing. Afterwards, the examiners classified the carious status of each tooth surface using a seven-point ordinal scale ranging from sound to extensive cavitation. Histological examination of extracted teeth found increased likelihood of carious demineralization in dentin as the ICDAS codes increased in severity. The criteria were also found to have discriminatory validity in analyses of social, behavioral and dietary factors associated with dental caries. The reliability of six examiners to classify tooth surfaces by their ICDAS carious status ranged between good to excellent (kappa coefficients ranged between 0.59 and 0.82). While further work is still needed to define caries activity, validate the criteria and their reliability in assessing dental caries on smooth surfaces, and develop a classification system for assessing preventive and restorative treatment needs, this early evaluation of the ICDAS platform has found that the system is practical; has content validity, correlational validity with histological examination of pits and fissures in extracted teeth; and discriminatory validity.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Crowns; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin; Feeding Behavior; Health Behavior; Humans; Needs Assessment; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Reproducibility of Results; Socioeconomic Factors; Tooth; Tooth Demineralization; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 17518963
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00347.x -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020Children aged 6-7 years are in the early mixed dentition, which is a period of high prevalence of dental caries and other dental diseases and a critical period for the...
BACKGROUND
Children aged 6-7 years are in the early mixed dentition, which is a period of high prevalence of dental caries and other dental diseases and a critical period for the formation of oral health behaviors. Therefore, good oral hygiene habits of children and oral health knowledge of parents are very important. This study sought to explore the relationship between children's oral health behaviors, parental oral health knowledge, parental choices of pit and fissure sealants, and parents' education levels based on a large-scale sample size for the first time, and to compare the influences of parental education levels between parents.
METHODS
Families of the first and second graders of primary schools in Wuhan Hongshan District were included in this study. A total of 8446 questionnaires were collected to obtain comprehensive information on children's oral health behaviors, parents' oral health knowledge and parents' pit and fissure sealants-related choices. The relationship between these outcome variables and parents' education levels were studied using logistic regression analysis and chi-square test.
RESULTS
Parents who reported good educational background had more favorable oral health knowledge than those of other parents, and their children had better oral hygiene behaviors. Four indicators of five measures to children's oral health behaviors were significantly associated with mother's education level (P < 0.05), and three of them were related to father's education level (P ≤ 0.01). Moreover, seven indicators of eight measures to parents' oral health knowledge were significantly related to mother's education level (P < 0.05) and four of them were affected by the father's (P < 0.05). In addition, parents with higher educational attainments paid more attention to the completeness of medical facilities, the environment of dental practice, the distance to treatment sites, and took less concern of children's willingness when choosing the pit and fissure sealants sites.
CONCLUSIONS
In families with children at the early mixed dentition stage, parents with higher education levels tend to have better oral health knowledge and more oral health care needs, such as pit and fissure sealants. In addition, children of parents who have better educated parents tend to perform better oral hygiene practices.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Caries; Educational Status; Female; Health Behavior; Health Education, Dental; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Literacy; Humans; Male; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Parents; Pit and Fissure Sealants; Surveys and Questionnaires; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 32652985
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01186-4