Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

BackgroundPreformed metal crowns (PMCs) are recommended by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) for restoring badly broken down primary molar teeth. However, few dental practitioners adopt this technique in clinical practice, citing cost and clinical difficulty as reasons for this. Whilst there is a subjective impression by clinical academics that PMCs provide a more durable restoration than filling materials, there appears to be little evidence within the literature to support this.ObjectivesThe primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes for primary molar teeth restored using PMCs compared to those restored with filling materials.Search methodsThe literature was searched using: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005); EMBASE (1980 to August 2005); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1976 to August 2005). Relevant publications' reference lists were reviewed for relevant articles. The most recent search was carried out on 24 August 2005.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of PMCs compared with filling materials or where there had been no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results to decide whether it was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and all three review authors studied these.Main resultsForty‐seven records were retrieved by the search strategies of which some were duplicates. Of these, 14 studies were scrutinised. No studies met the inclusion criteria and six studies were excluded from the review as they were either retrospective in design or reported as prospective outcomes but not randomised. No data were available for extraction and analysis and therefore, no conclusion could be made as to whether PMCs were more successful than filling materials for restoring primary molar teeth.Authors' conclusionsNo RCTs were available for appraisal. Whilst this technique is recommended by the BSPD for use in clinical practice, the evidence to support this is not strong, consisting mainly of case reports and uncontrolled studies. It is important that the absence of evidence for PMCs is not misinterpreted as evidence for their lack of efficacy.There is a strong need for prospective RCTs comparing PMCs and fillings for managing decayed primary molar teeth. The lower levels of evidence that have been produced, however, have strength in that the clinical outcomes are consistently in favour of PMCs, despite many of the studies placing PMCs on the most damaged of the pair of teeth being analysed

Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions:an umbrella review

Background: This umbrella review comprehensively appraised evidence for silver diamine fluoride (SDF) to arrest and prevent root and coronal caries by summarizing systematic reviews. Adverse events were explored. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO register and Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews investigating SDF for caries prevention or arrest (1970–2018) without language restrictions. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. Corrected covered area was calculated to quantify studies’ overlap across reviews. Results: Eleven systematic reviews were included; four focussing on SDF for root caries in adults and seven on coronal caries in children. These cited 30 studies (4 root caries; 26 coronal caries) appearing 63 times. Five systematic reviews were of “low”, one“unclear” and five “high” risk of bias. Overlap of studies was very high (50% root caries; 17% coronal caries). High overlap and heterogeneity, mainly comparators and outcome measures, precluded meta-analysis. Results were grouped by aim and outcomes to present an overview of direction and magnitude of effect. SDF had a positive effect on prevention and arrest of coronal and root caries, consistently outperforming comparators (fluoride varnish, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, placebo). For root caries prevention, the prevented fraction (PF) was 25–71% higher for SDF compared to placebo (two systematic reviews with three studies) and PF=100–725% for root caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies). For coronal caries prevention, PF=70–78% (two systematic reviews with two studies) and PF=55–96% for coronal caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies) with arrest rates of 65–91% (four systematic reviews with six studies). Eight systematic reviews reported adverse events, seven of which reported arrested lesions black staining. Conclusion: Systematic reviews consistently supported SDF’s effectiveness for arresting coronal caries in the primary dentition and arresting and preventing root caries in older adults for all comparators. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on SDF for prevention in primary teeth and prevention and arrest in permanent teeth in children. No serious adverse events were reported

Outcomes in Trials for Management of Caries Lesions (OuTMaC):protocol

Background Clinical trials on caries lesion management use an abundance of outcomes, hampering comparison or combination of different study results and their efficient translation into clinical practice. Core outcome sets are an agreed standardized collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific clinical area. We aim to develop a core outcome set for trials investigating management of caries lesions in primary or permanent teeth conducted in primary or secondary care encompassing all stages of disease. Methods To identify existing outcomes, trials on prevention and trials on management of caries lesions will be screened systematically in four databases. Screening, extraction and deduplication will be performed by two researchers until consensus is reached. The definition of the core outcome set will by based on an e-Delhi consensus process involving key stakeholders namely patients, dentists, clinical researchers, health economists, statisticians, policy-makers and industry representatives. For the first stage of the Delphi process, a patient panel and a separate panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, teachers, industry affiliated researchers, policy-makers, and other interested parties will be held. An inclusive approach will be taken to involve panelists from a wide variety of socio-economic and geographic backgrounds. Results from the first round will be summarized and fed back to individuals for the second round, where panels will be combined and allowed to modify their scoring in light of the full panel’s opinion. Necessity for a third round will be dependent on the outcome of the first two. Agreement will be measured via defined consensus rules; up to a maximum of seven outcomes. If resources allow, we will investigate features that influence decision making for different groups. Discussion By using an explicit, transparent and inclusive multi-step consensus process, the planned core outcome set should be justifiable, relevant and comprehensive. The dissemination and application of this core outcome set should improve clinical trials on managing caries lesions and allow comparison, synthesis and implementation of scientific data. Trial registration Registered 12 April 2015 at COMET (http://www.comet-initiative.org

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19):Characteristics in children and considerations for Dentists providing their care

The emergence of the novel virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to a global pandemic and one of the most significant challenges to the healthcare profession. Dental practices are focal points for cross-infection, and care must be taken to minimise the risk of infection to, from, or between dental care professionals and patients. The COVID-19 epidemiological and clinical characteristics are still being collated but children's symptoms seem to be milder than those that adults experience. It is unknown whether certain groups, for example children with comorbidities, might be at a higher risk of more severe illness. Emerging data on disease spread in children, affected by COVID-19, have not been presented in detail. The purpose of this article was to report current data on the paediatric population affected with COVID-19 and highlight considerations for dentists providing care for children during this pandemic. All members of the dental team have a professional responsibility to keep themselves informed of current guidance and be vigilant in updating themselves as recommendations are changing so quickly.</p

Passive smoking in the etiology of non-syndromic orofacial clefts:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Studies have found a consistent positive association between maternal smoking and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts (NSOFC). However, no comprehensive assessment of the association between NSOFC and passive smoking has been undertaken. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the relationship between maternal passive smoking and NSOFC, and compares the associations between passive and active smoking. Methods and Findings Search strategy, inclusion / exclusion criteria, and data extraction from studies reporting maternal passive smoking and NSOFC was implemented without language restrictions. Risks of bias in the identified studies were assessed and this information was used in sensitivity analyses to explain heterogeneity. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of the extracted data were performed. Egger's test was used to test for small study effects. Fourteen eligible articles were identified. Maternal passive smoking exposure was associated with a twofold increase in risk of NSOFC (odds ratio: 2.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-2.89); this was apparent for both cleft lip with and without palate (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.27-3.3) and cleft palate (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.23-3.62). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies. In the studies that provided data enabling crude and adjusted odd ratios to be compared, adjustment for potential confounders attenuated the magnitude of association to about a 1.5-fold increase in risk. Conclusion Overall, maternal passive smoking exposure results in a 1.5 fold increase in risk of NSOFC, similar to the magnitude of risk reported for active smoking, but there is marked heterogeneity between studies. This heterogeneity is not explained by differences in the distribution of cleft types, adjustment for covariates, broad geographic region, or study bias/quality. This thorough meta-analysis provides further evidence to minimize exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in policy making fora and in health promotion initiatives.</p

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID):a development protocol

Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The ‘Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry’ (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five‐phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale (‘well phrased’ or ‘needs revision’) and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = ‘definitely not include’ to 9 = ‘definitely include’). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face‐to‐face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer‐reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org

General and paediatric dentists’ knowledge, attitude and practises regarding the use of Silver Diammine Fluoride for the management of dental caries: a national survey in the Netherlands

Background: Silver Diammine Fluoride (SDF) is a topical medication used to arrest cavitated carious lesions non-invasively. The primary aim was to investigate, and analyse the relationships between; knowledge, attitudes and practises (including barriers and facilitators) for SDF use in the management of dental caries by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and paediatric dentists (PDs) in the Netherlands. A secondary aim was to explore any differences in these, between these groups. Methods: A randomly selected sample of 600 Dutch GDPs (out of 9,502 respectively) and all 57 registered Dutch PDs were invited to participate in this cross-sectional survey, consisting of four sections: (1) participant characteristics, (2) knowledge (through responses to summative questions), (3) attitudes (through statement agreement using 5-point Likert scale), and (4) practises, use, barriers and facilitators (through multiple choice questions). Results: The response rates were: GDPs 23% (n = 140) and PDs 47% (n = 27). Knowledge: out of 15 questions to test understanding of SDF, the mean number of correct answers were GDPs 6.7; standard deviation (SD) 2.6 and PDs 7.4, SD 2.2 with no significant difference. The mean overall attitude score showed positive attitudes towards SDF use for both groups. Compared to GDPs, PDs were more likely to use SDF (p < 0.001) and expected to increase their use (p = 0.037). The main barrier for users was parental acceptance (47%) and for non-users it was lack of knowledge (60%). The main facilitator for both users and non-users was gaining knowledge through courses and workshops, followed by written information leaflets about SDF for parents. Conclusion: Less than half of the knowledge questions about SDF were answered correctly. Despite low knowledge, attitude towards SDF use was positive. Practitioners believed that its use would be facilitated by professionals having more accessible information and training and by the availability of parent information leaflets. Furthermore, SDF is used more frequently by PDs than GDPs

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID):an expert consensus-based statement

Abstract Background Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process. Methods The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes. Results The final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05). Conclusions The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported