Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Bias (1)
- Caries prevention (1)
- Children (1)
- Fluoride (1)
- Guideline (1)
- Kinderzahnheilkunde (1)
- Notfall (1)
- Paediatric dentistry (1)
- Pandemie (1)
Institute
Publisher
- Springer Nature (1)
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.
Background: COVID-19 lead to the adoption of containment measures including temporary closure of dental clinics. Despite the risk of infection transmission, dental emergencies have not ceased during this pandemic and had to be managed also in the lockdown period.
Aim: To analyze the profiles and offered management options of pediatric patients presenting with dental emergencies during a COVID-19 lockdown.
Design: Retrospective analysis of patient records of children seeking emergency dental treatment during a 7-week lockdown period in 2020 in a university pedodontics clinic in Germany, compared to a similar cohort from 2019. Data on patient level, tooth level, and session level were collected. An analysis of the digital records after 6 months follow-up was performed for the patients who received Non-Aerosol Generating Procedures (NAGP) as management for dental emergency in the lockdown period in 2020.
Results: The 2020 cohort consisted of 83 patients, while the 2019 cohort included 46 patients showing 45% higher necessity for emergency treatment in 2020. Most common chief complaint was oral mucosal conditions in 2020 (26.4%), and irreversible pulpitis in 2019 (25.5%). Dental caries (without spontaneous pain) was the second most chief complaint in both cohorts (20.7% and 23.4% respectively). Most interventions in 2020 were Minimally Invasive Treatments such as the hall technique and silver diammine fluoride (20.3%), which were in 2019 not considered, followed by pharmacological treatment (16.9%), which were in 2019 also highly used (35.9%). The 6 months follow up for the NAGP revealed benefit in management of the acute dental problem, by either direct treatment or by postponing the treatment need to a later time period.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic led to increase in emergency pediatric dental visits and shifted treatment options towards less invasive procedures.
In challenging situations, where aerosols increase the risk of infection transmission, NAPD are a viable option in the management of dental emergencies, especially in pediatric dentistry.