What happens to cavitated primary teeth over time? A 3.5-year prospective cohort study in China

Evaluation of proximal slicing in primary maxillary incisors with proximal caries- a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Modern management of dental caries should be more conservative and include early detection of lesions and active surveillance, in order to apply preventive measures and carefully monitor for signs of arrest or progression. Proximal slicing was suggested for nonrestorative caries treatment for primary incisors. The aim of the study was to examine the success of proximal slicing in primary maxillary incisors in arresting caries progression.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from medical records of patients who had undergone proximal slicing in primary maxillary incisors with a follow-up period of at least 6 months. Treatment was considered a success when no further invasive clinical intervention was required within the follow-up period of at least 6 months. Treatment was considered a failure when further invasive clinical intervention was needed during the follow-up period (restoration, crown, or extraction). Additional variables included were the patient's gender, treated tooth, treated surface, age during their first visit to the clinic, age during slicing treatment, follow-up period, number of follow-up visits, and number of fluoride applications and additional slicing during follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were included in the study. Proximal slicing was successful in 76% of participants with a follow-up of at least 6 months. Success was associated with older age at the first dental visit (3.5yo vs. 2.5yo, p = 0.0011) and age when proximal slicing was performed (4yo vs. 3yo, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Proximal slicing may successfully arrest proximal caries in primary maxillary incisors.

Impact of non-restorative cavity control on proximal carious lesions of anterior primary teeth on the tooth survival and patient-centered outcomes (CEPECO 2): study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

Background

Studies have questioned the necessity of restoring cavitated carious lesion on primary teeth, once the control of biofilm is the most important factor to arrest these lesions. This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the survival of teeth treated with a non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) compared to resin composite restorations (RCR) on proximal carious lesion in anterior primary teeth, as well as the impact of these treatments on patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial with two parallels arms (1:1) will be conducted. Children between 3 and 6 years old will be selected from the Center of Clinic Research of Pediatric Dentistry of Ibirapuera University (UNIB), a dental trailer (FOUSP) located on Educational Complex Professor Carlos Osmarinho de Lima, the Pediatric Dentistry Clinic of Santa Cecília University and from the Pediatric Dentistry Clinic of University Center UNINOVAFAPI. One hundred and forty-eight teeth will be randomly distributed in two experimental groups: (1) Selective removal of carious tissue and RCR; or (2) NRCC through cavity enlargement using a metallic sandpaper. The primary outcome will be tooth survival after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The duration and the cost of dental treatments will be considered for the estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the evaluated treatments. The discomfort reported by the participants will be measured after each treatment using the FIS scale. The participants’ satisfaction and perception of the parents/legal guardians will be evaluated through questionnaires. For the primary outcome, Kaplan–Meier’s survival and Long-Rank test will be used for comparison between the two groups. All the variables will be modeled by Cox regression with shared fragility. Significance will be considered at 5%.

Discussion

The NRCC could be an option to manage carious lesions on proximal surfaces of primary teeth, and the approach could be well accepted by the children and parents/legal guardians.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03785730, Registered on December 18th 2018, first participant recruited 30/04/2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03785730.

Ethics Reference No: 91569118.8.0000.5597.

Trial Sponsor: Universidade Ibirapuera.

The Trial was prospectively registered.

Global and regional estimates of dental pain among children and adolescents-systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the pooled prevalence of dental pain amongst children and adolescents.

METHODS

Studies conducted in children and adolescents up to18 years of age and where prevalence of dental is reported or calculated were included. Search was performed in four major databases from inception to June 1st, 2019. Prevalence estimate at the maximal recall for the dental pain for the individual study was used to calculate the overall pooled estimate.

RESULTS

The prevalence of dental pain ranged from 1.33 to 87.8% in the included publications for quantitative synthesis (n = 97). More than half of the publications reported the lifetime prevalence of dental pain (n = 51) while few studies reported the current prevalence of dental pain (n = 3) and only one study evaluated the dental pain in the past one week. Heterogeneity was high among the included publications (Q = 49,063.12; P < 0.001; df = 96 and I² = 99.8; P < 0.001). Overall pooled prevalence of dental pain was 32.7 (CI = 29.6-35.9). No difference was seen with respect to the trends in prevalence of dental pain (Coefficient: 0.005; 95% CI - 0.001-0.011; P-value: 0.101).

CONCLUSION

Two out of ten children below five years, four out of ten children between 6 and 12 years and three out of ten adolescents between 13 and 18 years would have experienced pain in the past. Overall, three out of ten children or adolescents might have experienced dental pain in the past. There was no difference in the pain prevalence between male and females. Studies from Africa reported highest pooled prevalence (50.1%) with least being from Australia (20.7%). Studies from India (40.4%), China (41.3%) and Iran (42.6%) reported high pooled prevalence estimates of dental pain.

A study on the survival of primary molars with intact and with defective restorations

BACKGROUND

Failed restorations in primary teeth are not always re-restored. Is re-restoration not required anymore?

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival rates of primary molars with intact and defective amalgam and ART restorations.

METHODS

A total of 649 restored primary molars, of which 162 were assessed with defective restorations for mechanical reasons, from a cluster-randomised controlled clinical trial, were followed up over a period of 3.5 years. Restored primary molars, extracted because of dental sepsis or toothache, were considered a failure. Primary molars with defective restorations were followed up from the time they were assessed defective. Data were analysed using PHREG model with frailty correction, Wald test, t-test, and jackknife procedure.

RESULTS

The survival rate of primary molars with intact restorations (96.3%) was statistically significantly higher than that of primary molars with defective restorations (75.9%) over a 3-year period (P < 0.0001). Neither the effect of treatment protocol (amalgam or ART) (P = 0.05) nor the type of surface (single or multiple) (P = 0.73) was observed with respect to the survival rate of restored primary molars.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival rates for primary molars with intact and defective amalgam and ART restorations were high. The 3-year survival rate of primary molars with intact restorations was significantly higher than that of primary molars with defective restorations.

Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results

Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques, are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. There is also increasing interest in techniques where no caries is removed. We present the 1-yr results of clinical efficacy for 3 caries management options for occlusoproximal cavitated lesions in primary molars: conventional restorations (CR; complete caries removal and compomer restoration), Hall technique (HT; no caries removal, sealing in with stainless steel crowns), and nonrestorative caries treatment (NRCT; no caries removal, opening up the cavity, teaching brushing and fluoride application). In sum, 169 children (3-8 yr old; mean, 5.56 ± 1.45 yr) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were carried out by specialist pediatric dentists or postgraduate trainees. One lesion per child received CR, HT, or NRCT. Outcome measures were clinical failure rates, grouped as minor failure (restoration loss/need for replacement, reversible pulpitis, caries progression, etc.) and major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, etc.). There were 148 children (87.6%) with a minimum follow-up of 11 mo (mean, 12.23 ± 0.98 mo). Twenty teeth were recorded as having at least 1 minor failure: NRCT, n = 8 (5%); CR, n = 11 (7%); HT, n = 1 (1%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Only the comparison between NRCT and CR showed no significant difference (p = .79, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.80). Nine (6%) experienced at least 1 major failure: NRCT, n = 4 (2%); CR, n = 5 (3%); HT, n = 0 (0%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Individual comparison of NRCT and CR showed no statistically significant difference in major failures (p = .75, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.76). Success and failure rates were not significantly affected by pediatric dentists' level of experience (p = .13, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.14). The HT was significantly more successful clinically than NRCT and CR after 1 yr, while pairwise analyses showed comparable results for treatment success between NRCT and CR (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01797458).

Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars?

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the cumulative survival rate of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations in primary molars over 3 years.

METHODS

280 children aged 6-7 years old were enrolled in a cluster randomized controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design covering two treatment groups: conventional restorative treatment with amalgam (CRT) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using a high-viscosity glass-ionomer (HVGIC) Ketac Molar Easymix. Three pedodontists placed 750 restorations (364 amalgam and 386 ART in 126 and 154 children, respectively) which were evaluated at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years. The proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction, ANOVA and Wald tests, and the Jackknife procedure were applied in analysing the data.

RESULTS

The cumulative survival rates over 3 years for all, single- and multiple-surface CRT/amalgam restorations (72.6%, 93.4%, 64.7%, respectively) were no different from those of comparable ART/HVGIC restorations (66.8%; 90.1% and 56.4%, respectively) (p=0.10). Single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations for the both treatment procedures (p<0.0001). A higher proportion of restorations failed because of mechanical reasons (94.8%) than of secondary caries (5.2%). No difference in reasons for restoration failures between all types of amalgam and ART/HVGIC restorations were observed (p=0.24).

SIGNIFICANCE

The high-viscosity glass-ionomer used in this study in conjunction with the ART is a viable option for restoring carious dentin lesions in single surfaces in vital primary molars.