A Randomized Controlled Trial of Caries Prevention in Dental Practice

We conducted a parallel group randomized controlled trial of children initially aged 2 to 3 y who were caries free, to prevent the children becoming caries active over the subsequent 36 mo. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland, and children were randomly assigned by a clinical trials unit (CTU) (using computer-generated random numbers, with allocation concealed from the dental practice until each child was recruited) to the intervention (22,600-ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized, evidence-based prevention advice) or advice-only control at 6-monthly intervals. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (dmfs) in caries-active children, number of episodes of pain, and number of extracted teeth. Adverse reactions were recorded. Calibrated external examiners, blinded to the child’s study group, assessed the status of the children at baseline and after 3 y. In total, 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 intervention, 547 control) were included in the final analyses. Eighty-seven percent of intervention and 86% of control children attended every 6-mo visit (P = 0.77). A total of 187 (34%) in the intervention group converted to caries active compared to 213 (39%) in the control group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.64–1.04; P = 0.11). Mean dmfs of those with caries in the intervention group was 7.2 compared to 9.6 in the control group (P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups (P = 0.81) or in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children (P = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had adverse reactions of a minor nature. This well-conducted trial failed to demonstrate that the intervention kept children caries free, but there was evidence that once children get caries, it slowed down its progression (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119)

Restorative Thresholds for Carious Lesions:Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Current evidence supports noninvasive/nonrestorative treatment of “early” carious lesions: those confined to enamel or reaching the enamel-dentin junction. The extent that dentists’ thresholds for intervening restoratively have changed with this evidence is unknown. This systematic review aimed to determine dentists’ and therapists’ current lesion threshold for carrying our restorative interventions in adults/children and primary/permanent teeth. Embase, Medline via PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for observational studies, without language, time, or quality restrictions. Screening and data extraction were independent and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses with subgroup and meta-regression analysis were performed. Thirty studies, mainly involving dentists, met the inclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in sampling frames, methods, and scales used to investigate thresholds. The studies spanned 30 y (1983–2014), and sample representativeness and response bias issues were likely to have affected the results. Studies measured what dentists said they would do rather than actually did. Studies represented 17 countries, focusing mainly on adults (n = 17) and permanentteeth (n = 24). For proximal carious lesions confined to enamel (not reaching the enamel-dentin junction), 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%–28%) of dentists/therapists would intervene invasively. The likelihood of a restorative intervention almost doubled (risk ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.68–2.33) in high caries risk patients. For proximal lesions extending up to the enamel-dentin junction, 47% (95% CI, 39%–55%) of dentists/therapists would intervene restoratively. For occlusal lesions with enamel discoloration/cavitation but no clinical/radiographic dentin involvement, 12% (95% CI, 6%–22%) of dentists/therapists stated they would intervene, increasing to 74% (95% CI,56%–86%) with dentin involvement. There was variance between countries but no significant temporal trend. A significant proportion of dentists/therapists said they would intervene invasively (restoratively) on carious lesions where evidence and clinical recommendations indicate less invasive therapies should be used. There is great need to understand decisions to intervene restoratively and to find implementation interventions that translate research evidence into clinical practice

The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) are multifactor, complex clinical problems affecting approximately 60–70% of the general population, with considerable controversy about the most effective treatment. For example, reports claim success rates of 70% and 83% for non-surgical and surgical treatment, whereas other reports claim success rates of 40% to 70% for self-improvement without treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) identify systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment, (2) evaluate their methodological quality, and (3) evaluate the evidence grade within the systematic reviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search strategy was developed and implemented for MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Brazilian Dentistry Bibliography databases. Inclusion criteria were: systematic reviews (± meta-analysis) comparing surgical and non-surgical TMJD treatment, published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or German between the years 1966 and 2007(up to July). Exclusion criteria were: <it>in vitro </it>or animal studies; narrative reviews or editorials or editorial letters; and articles published in other languages. Two investigators independently selected and evaluated systematic reviews. Three different instruments (AMSTAR, OQAQ and CASP) were used to evaluate methodological quality, and the results averaged. The GRADE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence grade within the reviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search strategy identified 211 reports; of which 2 were systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. The first review met 23.5 ± 6.0% and the second met 77.5 ± 12.8% of the methodological quality criteria (mean ± sd). In these systematic reviews between 9 and 15% of the trials were graded as high quality, and 2 and 8% of the total number of patients were involved in these studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results indicate that in spite of the widespread impact of TMJD, and the multitude of potential interventions, clinicians have expended sparse attention to systematically implementing clinical trial methodology that would improve validity and reliability of outcome measures. With some 20 years of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare, the meager attention to these issues begins to raise ethical issues about TMJD trial conduct and clinical care.</p

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a single annual professional intervention for the prevention of childhood dental caries in a remote rural Indigenous community

Background The aim of the study is to reduce the high prevalence of tooth decay in children in a remote, rural Indigenous community in Australia, by application of a single annual dental preventive intervention. The study seeks to (1) assess the effectiveness of an annual oral health preventive intervention in slowing the incidence of dental caries in children in this community, (2) identify the mediating role of known risk factors for dental caries and (3) assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the intervention. Methods/design The intervention is novel in that most dental preventive interventions require regular re-application, which is not possible in resource constrained communities. While tooth decay is preventable, self-care and healthy habits are lacking in these communities, placing more emphasis on health services to deliver an effective dental preventive intervention. Importantly, the study will assess cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness for broader implementation across similar communities in Australia and internationally. Discussion There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of dental decay in these communities, by implementing effective, cost-effective, feasible and sustainable dental prevention programs. Expected outcomes of this study include improved oral and general health of children within the community; an understanding of the costs associated with the intervention provided, and its comparison with the costs of allowing new lesions to develop, with associated treatment costs. Findings should be generalisable to similar communities around the world. The research is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), registration number ACTRN12615000693527; date of registration: 3rd July 2015