Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review compared children's primary dentition caries experience for those with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and without. Four databases were searched without date restriction for; cross‐sectional studies comparing caries experience for children with CL/P to those without. Screening, data extraction and risk assessment were carried out independently (in duplicate). Meta‐analyses used a random‐effects model. Twenty studies (21 reports) fitting the inclusion criteria comprised 4647 children in primary dentition from 12 countries. For dmft (n = 3016 children; 15 groups), CL/P mean = 3.2; standard deviation = 2.22 and no CL/P mean dmft = 2.5; sd 1.53. For dmfs (n = 1095 children; 6 groups), CL/P mean = 4; sd = 3.5 and no CL/P mean = 3; sd = 2.8. For % caries experience (n = 1094 children; 7 groups), CL/P mean = 65%; sd = 20.8 and no CL/P mean = 52%; sd = 28.1. Meta‐analysis showed higher caries experience in children with CL/P, standardised mean difference = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.77. Studies' risk of bias was high (n = 7), medium (n−10) and low (n = 3). Children with CL/P had higher caries experience compared to those without CLP.

WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I2 = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To determine the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of interventions (non‐selective, selective or stepwise carious tissue removal, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns, or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro‐cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non‐cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

BACKGROUND

Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment. Secondary objectiveTo explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns.For trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively').

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique).We considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs. Crowns versus fillingsAll studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies).Discomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence).It is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence). Crowns versus non-restorative caries treatmentOnly one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates. Metal crowns versus aesthetic crownsOne split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.

The FiCTION dental trial protocol - filling children's teeth: indicated or not?

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence for effective management of dental caries (decay) in children's primary (baby) teeth and an apparent failure of conventional dental restorations (fillings) to prevent dental pain and infection for UK children in Primary Care. UK dental schools' teaching has been based on British Society of Paediatric Dentistry guidance which recommends that caries in primary teeth should be removed and a restoration placed. However, the evidence base for this is limited in volume and quality, and comes from studies conducted in either secondary care or specialist practices. Restorations provided in specialist environments can be effective but the generalisability of this evidence to Primary Care has been questioned. The FiCTION trial addresses the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme’s commissioning brief and research question “What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of restoration caries in primary teeth, compared to no treatment?” It compares conventional restorations with an intermediate treatment strategy based on the biological (sealing-in) management of caries and with no restorations.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a Primary Care-based multi-centre, three-arm, parallel group, patient-randomised controlled trial. Practitioners are recruiting 1461 children, (3-7 years) with at least one primary molar tooth where caries extends into dentine. Children are randomized and treated according to one of three treatment approaches; conventional caries management with best practice prevention, biological management of caries with best practice prevention or best practice prevention alone. Baseline measures and outcome data (at review/treatment during three year follow-up) are assessed through direct reporting, clinical examination including blinded radiograph assessment, and child/parent questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of either pain or infection related to dental caries. Secondary outcomes are; incidence of caries in primary and permanent teeth, patient quality of life, cost-effectiveness, acceptability of treatment strategies to patients and parents and their experiences, and dentists’ preferences.

DISCUSSION

FiCTION will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing caries in children's primary teeth in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners in treatment decision making for child patients to minimize pain and infection in primary teeth. The trial is currently recruiting patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol ID: NCTU: ISRCTN77044005.

A Group of General Dental Practitioners’ Views of Preformed Metal Crowns after Participation in the Hall Technique Clinical Trial: A Mixed-Method Evaluation

Aims

The aims of this study were to investigate and describe the views of a group of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on their use of preformed metal crowns (PMCs) with the conventional method and the Hall Technique. The practitioners involved had previously taken part in a clinical trial of the Hall Technique.

Methods

The dentists’ views were explored using a semi-structured interview (transcribed and analysed using a framework approach) and their use of crowns investigated (for conventional and Hall Technique) using a short questionnaire.

Results

Fourteen out of 17 dentists who participated in the trial were interviewed and completed the questionnaire. Prior to the trial, only three of the GDPs had been using conventional PMCs at all and this was ‘infrequently’. None had been using them routinely. The semi-structured questionnaires revealed three main themes reflecting positively on the GDPs’ experiences with the Hall Technique: its ease of use, its high patient acceptability, and the dentists’ perceived clinical effectiveness of the technique. Thirteen of the 14 GDPs stated that they would continue to use the Hall Technique routinely and only one thought that he would not use it.

Conclusion

Among a small group of GDPs with little experience or training in the use of the Hall Technique, it was perceived to be easy to use routinely, acceptable to patients and effective.

A technique for the study of endocytosis in human oral epithelial cells

Fluorescently labelled latex microspheres (0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 micron dia.) were used to establish whether oral epithelial cells could exhibit an endocytic function. Oral mucosa biopsies were incubated in organ culture at 37 degrees C for 20 h with one of the three sizes of fluorescent microspheres in the medium. Tissue pieces were then disaggregated and cell suspensions analysed for cell content and viability. Evidence of endocytosis was sought by using fluorescence-activated cell scanning (FACS) and confocal microscopy to study the epithelial cell suspensions for internalization of the microspheres. Confirmation that the microspheres had been internalized and were not merely attached to the cell exterior was shown by using trypan blue quenching to extinguish extracellular fluorescence, allowing analysis of only intracellular fluorescent microspheres. Both FACS and confocal microscopy confirmed uptake of 0.01 and 0.1 micron dia. microspheres but not 1.0 micron. Endocytosis was quantitated using FACS and a dose-dependent relation between the concentration of spheres in the incubation medium and uptake was found. Internalization of microspheres of < 1.0 micron dia. and the dose-dependent uptake support a fluid-phase constitutive endocytic process.

Biology and function of the reversible sulfation pathway catalysed by human sulfotransferases and sulfatases

Sulfation and sulfate conjugate hydrolysis play an important role in metabolism, and are catalysed by members of the sulfotransferase and sulfatase enzyme super-families. In general, sulfation is a deactivating, detoxication pathway, but for some chemicals the sulfate conjugates are much more reactive than the parent compound. The range of compounds which are sulfated is enormous, yet we still understand relatively little of the function of this pathway. This review summarises current knowledge of the sulfation system and the enzymes involved, and illustrates how heterologous expression of sulfotransferases (SULTs) and sulfatases is aiding our appreciation of the properties of these important proteins. The role of sulfation in the bioactivation of procarcinogens and promutagens is discussed, and new data on the inhibition of the sulfotransferase(s) involved by common dietary components such as tea and coffee are presented. The genetic and environmental factors which are known to influence the activity and expression of human SULTs and sulfatases are also reviewed.