Search

Purpose: Critically review and summarise existing knowledge on prevalence of oral, dental, and craniofacial side-effects of antineoplastic treatment in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). Methods: A literature search was conducted for studies reporting on children aged 4–19 years treated for any type of malignancy up to the age of 15 years and for whom, at the time of the examination, more than 8 months have elapsed since the end of treatment. Data regarding dental late effects on teeth and craniofacial complex were collected and mean prevalence of each defect was reported. Results: From the 800 articles identified, 17 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included. A total of 983 CCS were examined, with the total number of healthy controls being 1266 children. Haematological malignancy was the most prevalent diagnosis with the age at diagnosis ranging between 0–15 years. Multiple antineoplastic protocols were implemented with the elapsed time being 8 months up to 17 years. One-third of CCS experienced at least one late effect, with corresponding value for the control group being below 25%. Among the defects identified clinically, microdontia, hypodontia and enamel developmental defects were recorded in 1/4 of CCS. Impaired root growth and agenesis were the two defects mostly recorded radiographically. The effect on dental maturity and on salivary glands was unclear. Conclusion: CCS are at risk of developing dental late effects because of their disease and its treatment and therefore, routine periodic examinations are essential to record their development and provide comprehensive oral healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This umbrella review aimed to critically appraise the evidence published in systematic reviews (SRs) on the clinical effectiveness of sealants compared with each other/the non-use in primary/permanent teeth of children and adolescents with at least 12-month follow-up. Methods: A systematic literature search on 4 electronic databases was conducted up to January 18th, 2023. Following handsearching, two review authors independently screened retrieved articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. Based on a citation matrix, the overlap was interpreted by the corrected covered area (CCA). Results: Of 239 retrieved records, 7 SRs met the eligibility criteria with a moderate overlap among them (CCA = 7.4%). For primary molars, in 1120 1.5- to 8-year-old children, data on the clinical effectiveness of sealants were inconclusive. For permanent molars, 3 SRs found a significant caries risk reduction for sealants versus non-use (≤ 36-month follow-up). There was insufficient evidence to proof superiority of sealants over fluoride varnish for caries prevention (3 SRs), and to rank sealant materials according to the best clinical effectiveness in permanent molars. One study was rated at low and 6 at high RoB, which did not allow for a valid quantitative synthesis. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of this umbrella review, sealants are more effective for caries prevention in children's permanent molars compared to no treatment. Future well-implemented RCTs are needed to draw reliable conclusions on the clinical effectiveness of sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development. Methods: Four electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment. Results: After identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4–2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0–2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies. Conclusion: Considering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development. Methods: Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Results: Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1–28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2–37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6–16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9–16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9–25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0–14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0–19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0–16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) has developed this best clinical practice guidance to help clinicians manage deep carious lesions in primary teeth. Methods: Three expert groups conducted systematic reviews of the relevant literature. The topics were: (1) conventional techniques (2) Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID) and (3) materials. Workshops were held during the corresponding EAPD interim seminar in Oslo in April 2021. Several clinical based recommendations and statements were agreed upon, and gaps in our knowledge were identified. Results: There is strong evidence that indirect pulp capping and pulpotomy techniques, and 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride are shown to be effective for the management of caries in the primary dentition. Due to the strict criteria, it is not possible to give clear recommendations on which materials are most appropriate for restoring primary teeth with deep carious lesions. Atraumatic Restorative Technique (ART) is not suitable for multi-surface caries, and Pre-formed Metal Crowns (PMCs) using the Hall technique reduce patient discomfort. GIC and RMGIC seem to be more favourable given the lower annual failure rate compared to HVGIC and MRGIC. Glass carbomer cannot be recommended due to inferior marginal adaptation and fractures. Compomers, hybrid composite resins and bulk-fill composite resins demonstrated similar values for annual failure rates. Conclusion: The management of deep carious lesions in primary teeth can be challenging and must consider the patient's compliance, operator skills, materials and costs. There is a clear need to increase the use of MID techniques in managing carious primary teeth as a mainstream rather than a compromise option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To analyse clinical studies investigating coating agents such as sealants and other bonding materials to prevent the initiation or inhibit the progress of white spot lesions (WSL) during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Electronic databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, EMBASE) were screened for studies. No language restrictions were applied. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate. Primary outcome included assessment of WSL with visual-tactile assessment and/or laser fluorescence measurements. Twenty-four studies with 1117 patients (age: 11–40 years) and 12,809 teeth were included. Overall, 34 different sealants or bonding materials were analysed. Fourteen studies analysed fluoride and 14 studies non-fluoride releasing materials. Meta-analysis for visual tactile assessment revealed that sealants significantly decreased the initiation of WSL compared to untreated control (RR [95%CI] = 0.70 [0.53; 0.93]; very low level of evidence). Materials releasing fluoride did not decrease initiation of WSL compared to those with no fluoride release (RR [95%CI] = 0.84 [0.70; 1.01]; very low level of evidence). For laser fluorescence measurements no meta-analysis could be performed. The use of sealants seems to be effective in preventing the initiation of post-orthodontic WSL. Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting that fluoride-releasing sealants or bonding materials are more effective than those without fluoride release. No gold standard prevention strategy to prevent WSL during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances has been established yet. However, based on only a limited number of studies the use of sealants seems to be effective in preventing the initiation of post-orthodontic WSL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present review systematically analyzed clinical studies investigating the efficacy of resin infiltration on post-orthodontic or non-post-orthodontic, white spot lesions (WSL), or fluorosis.Five electronic databases (Central, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, LILACS) were screened. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. No language or time restrictions were applied. Outcomes were visual-tactile or DIAGNOdent measurements.Eleven studies with 1834 teeth being affected in 413 patients were included. Nine studies were randomized control trials, one a prospective cohort study, and one had an unclear study design. Meta-analysis could be performed for “resin infiltration vs. untreated control,” “resin infiltration vs. fluoride varnish,” and “resin infiltration without bleaching vs. resin infiltration with bleaching.” WSL being treated with resin infiltration showed a significantly higher optical improvement than WSL without any treatment (standard mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.59, 1.88], moderate level of evidence [visual-tactile assessment]) and with fluoride varnish application (mean difference (MD) [95% CI] = 4.76 [0.74, 8.78], moderate level of evidence [DIAGNOdent reading]). In patients with fluorosis, bleaching prior to resin infiltration showed no difference in the masking effect compared to infiltration alone (MD [95% CI] = − 0.30 [− 0.98, 0.39], moderate level of evidence).Resin infiltration has a significantly higher masking effect than natural remineralization or regular application of fluoride varnishes. However, although the evidence was graded as moderate, this conclusion is based on only very few well-conducted RCTs.Resin infiltration seems to be a viable option to esthetically mask enamel white spot lesions and fluorosis.Materials: The present review systematically analyzed clinical studies investigating the efficacy of resin infiltration on post-orthodontic or non-post-orthodontic, white spot lesions (WSL), or fluorosis.Five electronic databases (Central, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, LILACS) were screened. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. No language or time restrictions were applied. Outcomes were visual-tactile or DIAGNOdent measurements.Eleven studies with 1834 teeth being affected in 413 patients were included. Nine studies were randomized control trials, one a prospective cohort study, and one had an unclear study design. Meta-analysis could be performed for “resin infiltration vs. untreated control,” “resin infiltration vs. fluoride varnish,” and “resin infiltration without bleaching vs. resin infiltration with bleaching.” WSL being treated with resin infiltration showed a significantly higher optical improvement than WSL without any treatment (standard mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.59, 1.88], moderate level of evidence [visual-tactile assessment]) and with fluoride varnish application (mean difference (MD) [95% CI] = 4.76 [0.74, 8.78], moderate level of evidence [DIAGNOdent reading]). In patients with fluorosis, bleaching prior to resin infiltration showed no difference in the masking effect compared to infiltration alone (MD [95% CI] = − 0.30 [− 0.98, 0.39], moderate level of evidence).Resin infiltration has a significantly higher masking effect than natural remineralization or regular application of fluoride varnishes. However, although the evidence was graded as moderate, this conclusion is based on only very few well-conducted RCTs.Resin infiltration seems to be a viable option to esthetically mask enamel white spot lesions and fluorosis.Results: The present review systematically analyzed clinical studies investigating the efficacy of resin infiltration on post-orthodontic or non-post-orthodontic, white spot lesions (WSL), or fluorosis.Five electronic databases (Central, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, LILACS) were screened. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. No language or time restrictions were applied. Outcomes were visual-tactile or DIAGNOdent measurements.Eleven studies with 1834 teeth being affected in 413 patients were included. Nine studies were randomized control trials, one a prospective cohort study, and one had an unclear study design. Meta-analysis could be performed for “resin infiltration vs. untreated control,” “resin infiltration vs. fluoride varnish,” and “resin infiltration without bleaching vs. resin infiltration with bleaching.” WSL being treated with resin infiltration showed a significantly higher optical improvement than WSL without any treatment (standard mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.59, 1.88], moderate level of evidence [visual-tactile assessment]) and with fluoride varnish application (mean difference (MD) [95% CI] = 4.76 [0.74, 8.78], moderate level of evidence [DIAGNOdent reading]). In patients with fluorosis, bleaching prior to resin infiltration showed no difference in the masking effect compared to infiltration alone (MD [95% CI] = − 0.30 [− 0.98, 0.39], moderate level of evidence).Resin infiltration has a significantly higher masking effect than natural remineralization or regular application of fluoride varnishes. However, although the evidence was graded as moderate, this conclusion is based on only very few well-conducted RCTs.Resin infiltration seems to be a viable option to esthetically mask enamel white spot lesions and fluorosis.Conclusion: The present review systematically analyzed clinical studies investigating the efficacy of resin infiltration on post-orthodontic or non-post-orthodontic, white spot lesions (WSL), or fluorosis.Five electronic databases (Central, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, LILACS) were screened. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. No language or time restrictions were applied. Outcomes were visual-tactile or DIAGNOdent measurements.Eleven studies with 1834 teeth being affected in 413 patients were included. Nine studies were randomized control trials, one a prospective cohort study, and one had an unclear study design. Meta-analysis could be performed for “resin infiltration vs. untreated control,” “resin infiltration vs. fluoride varnish,” and “resin infiltration without bleaching vs. resin infiltration with bleaching.” WSL being treated with resin infiltration showed a significantly higher optical improvement than WSL without any treatment (standard mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.59, 1.88], moderate level of evidence [visual-tactile assessment]) and with fluoride varnish application (mean difference (MD) [95% CI] = 4.76 [0.74, 8.78], moderate level of evidence [DIAGNOdent reading]). In patients with fluorosis, bleaching prior to resin infiltration showed no difference in the masking effect compared to infiltration alone (MD [95% CI] = − 0.30 [− 0.98, 0.39], moderate level of evidence).Resin infiltration has a significantly higher masking effect than natural remineralization or regular application of fluoride varnishes. However, although the evidence was graded as moderate, this conclusion is based on only very few well-conducted RCTs.Resin infiltration seems to be a viable option to esthetically mask enamel white spot lesions and fluorosis.Clinical relevance: The present review systematically analyzed clinical studies investigating the efficacy of resin infiltration on post-orthodontic or non-post-orthodontic, white spot lesions (WSL), or fluorosis.Five electronic databases (Central, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, LILACS) were screened. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. No language or time restrictions were applied. Outcomes were visual-tactile or DIAGNOdent measurements.Eleven studies with 1834 teeth being affected in 413 patients were included. Nine studies were randomized control trials, one a prospective cohort study, and one had an unclear study design. Meta-analysis could be performed for “resin infiltration vs. untreated control,” “resin infiltration vs. fluoride varnish,” and “resin infiltration without bleaching vs. resin infiltration with bleaching.” WSL being treated with resin infiltration showed a significantly higher optical improvement than WSL without any treatment (standard mean difference (SMD) [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.59, 1.88], moderate level of evidence [visual-tactile assessment]) and with fluoride varnish application (mean difference (MD) [95% CI] = 4.76 [0.74, 8.78], moderate level of evidence [DIAGNOdent reading]). In patients with fluorosis, bleaching prior to resin infiltration showed no difference in the masking effect compared to infiltration alone (MD [95% CI] = − 0.30 [− 0.98, 0.39], moderate level of evidence).Resin infiltration has a significantly higher masking effect than natural remineralization or regular application of fluoride varnishes. However, although the evidence was graded as moderate, this conclusion is based on only very few well-conducted RCTs.Resin infiltration seems to be a viable option to esthetically mask enamel white spot lesions and fluorosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]