Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Children (3) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (2)
- Springer Nature (1)
For an Organisation for Caries Research/European Federation of Conservative Dentistry consensus, this systematic review is aimed to assess the question of how to manage the caries process in the case of early childhood caries (ECC). Medline via PubMed was searched systematically regarding management of ECC. First priority was existing systematic reviews or randomized clinical trials otherwise cohort studies dealing with management of ECC, primarily with carious anterior teeth. After data extraction, the potential risk of bias was estimated depending on the study types, and the level of evidence was evaluated. Regarding management of ECC, results are presented for silver diamine fluoride (SDF, n = 5), nonoperative caries management (NOCM, n = 10), and restorative approaches (RA, n = 8) separately, as different kinds of studies with different levels of evidence were found for the different aspects in the management of ECC. The 5 systematic reviews on SDF showed a high potential for arrest of ECC on a high level of evidence. In NOCM, a low level of evidence for a moderate effect of fluoride varnish in arresting or remineralizing, especially non-cavitated lesions, was assessed. For RA in carious anterior upper primary teeth, a low level of evidence was found for higher failure rates of glass ionomer cement and composite fillings than composite strip crowns even if placed under general anaesthesia and especially compared to other crowns (stainless steel and zirconia). In conclusions, ECC may be managed successfully with nonoperative (SDF, regular fluoride application) and moderately well with operative approaches, but the decision is affected by many other variables such as pulpal involvement, the child’s cooperation, or a general anaesthesia setting.
Long-term nationally representative caries data in the primary dentition are rare, but nonetheless central to assess needs in caries prevention and treatment. This study evaluated the prevalence and trends of caries levels in the primary dentition of 6- to 7-year-olds in Germany as a whole and its federal states individually. In 2016, employing a randomized cluster selection, 6- to 7-year-old first graders were included in the National German Oral Health Survey performed regularly since 1994/95. Children were examined by 482 calibrated dentists in all 17 German regions using the WHO criteria for the decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft) including the assessment of initial carious lesions (it). In total, 151,555 6- to 7-year-olds were examined. Caries prevalence in the primary dentition dropped from 65% in 1994 to 44% in 2016, while the mean caries experience dropped from 2.89 to 1.73 dmft (dt = 0.74, mt = 0.19, ft = 0.80). When initial lesions were included, the mean caries experience increased to idmft = 2.12 (it = 0.38). In 2016, 49.7% of the examined 6- to 7-year-olds were caries-free including initial lesions. The Care Index at the tooth level was 57.5%, and the Significant Caries Index was 4.84 dmft. Depending on the German region, the mean dmft varied considerably, ranging from 1.37 to 2.31. In conclusion, despite the overall caries decline in 6- to 7-year-olds in Germany, only minor caries reductions were observed over the last decade, with a still existing high proportion of untreated dental decay. This calls for more effective preventive and restorative efforts with focus on the primary dentition in Germany.
Purpose
The significance of the underlying literature in clinical guidelines can be weakened by the risk of bias, which could negatively affect the recommendations. Especially in controversial matters, such as fluoride use for caries prevention in children, biased results may be not reliable and lead to incorrect conclusions. This study was performed to detect bias in underlying literature of the German guideline for caries prevention using fluoride in children, where no consensus was reached between paediatricians and paediatric dentists.
Methods
Three tools used for risk of bias assessments of different study designs were RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, and ROBIS for systematic reviews. For each study cited in the guideline two independent risk of bias assessments were performed. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Results
Out of 58 papers, 48.3% (n = 28) showed high risk of bias, with the majority in sections regarding fluoride tablets, fluoridated toothpaste, and paediatricians’ recommendations. 9 out of 20 recommendations and statements were based on studies with high risk of bias, all of which were in these three controversial sections. 13 out of 29 RCTs showed high risk of bias (44.8%), as all 13 non-randomized trials did, while only 2 of 16 (12.5%) systematic reviews had high risk of bias.
Conclusion
Considering risk of bias of cited studies in clinical guidelines may result in substantial changes in its recommendations and aid in reaching consensus. Efforts should be made to assess risk of bias of underlying literature in future clinical guidelines.