Search

Background This paper describes the socio-demographics and oral health of secondary school pupils. They were participants of the BRIGHT trial, which was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a toothbrushing intervention to reduce dental caries. Methods Overall, 4680 pupils aged 11-13 years attending 42 secondary schools in England, Scotland, and Wales with above average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals were recruited to the trial. Socio-demographic data were collected. Participants had a clinical assessment for caries, plaque and bleeding and completed measures of oral and general health-related quality of life and oral health behaviours (frequency of toothbrushing, dental attendance and cariogenic food/drinks consumed). Regression analyses were performed. Results Over one-third (34.7%) of participants had caries experience with 44.5% reporting their oral health had an impact on their daily lives. Factors associated with a statistically significant increased likelihood of caries experience were older age, females, eligibility for free school meals, worse oral health-related quality of life, higher cariogenic intake, less than twice-daily toothbrushing, living in a more deprived area and lower school attendance. Conclusions The prevalence and impact of dental caries on the lives of pupils remains high with further oral health promotion activities needed in targeted secondary schools. Trial registration: ISRCTN12139369.

Background Globally, around 13% of children experience dental anxiety (DA). This group of patients frequently miss dental appointments, have greater reliance on treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) and have poorer oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) than their non-dentally anxious peers. Recently, a low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based, self-help approach has been recommended for management of childhood anxiety disorders. A feasibility study conducted in secondary care found this guided self-help CBT resource reduced DA and a randomised controlled trial was recommended. The present study aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a guided self-help CBT intervention to reduce DA in children attending primary dental care sites compared to usual care. Methods This 4-year randomised controlled trial will involve 600 children (aged 9–16 years) and their parent/carers in 30 UK primary dental care sites. At least two dental professionals will participate in each site. They will be assigned, using random allocation, to receive the CBT training and deliver the intervention or to deliver usual care. Children with DA attending these sites, in need of treatment, will be randomly allocated to be treated either by the intervention (CBT) or control (usual care) dental professional. Children will complete questionnaires relating to DA, OHRQoL and HRQoL before treatment, immediately after treatment completion and 12 months post-randomisation. Attendance, need for sedation/GA and costs of the two different approaches will be compared. The primary outcome, DA, will be measured using the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Scores will be compared between groups using a linear mixed model. Discussion Treating dentally anxious patients can be challenging and costly. Consequently, these children are frequently referred to specialist services for pharmacological interventions. Longer waiting times and greater travel distances may then compound existing healthcare inequalities. This research will investigate whether the intervention has the potential to reduce DA and improve oral health outcomes in children over their life-course, as well as upskilling primary dental healthcare professionals to better manage this patient group. Trial registration This clinical trial has been registered with an international registry and has been allocated an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN27579420).

Background Despite growing evidence to support the use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) for managing carious lesions, and the increased interest in SDF worldwide, uptake in the UK remains limited. This study explored parents’ and children’s views and acceptability of SDF for the management of carious lesions in children. Methods Eleven semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 11 parent–child dyads recruited from patients attending Dundee Dental Hospital and School. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and thematically analysed. Results Previous dental experience varied across all child participants. Of the 11 children, five had undergone general anaesthesia (GA) for multiple primary tooth extractions. Two had received SDF treatment. Child participants expressed concerns about being picked on by their peers, if they had discoloured anterior teeth. Younger children appeared less concerned about the discolouration and child’s gender did not appear to influence parents’ decision-making, nor the child’s preferences regarding the use of SDF. Parents considered SDF to be particularly useful for anxious or uncooperative children but raised concerns about potential bullying at schools due to the unacceptable dental aesthetics when SDF is applied to anterior teeth. They believed they may be judged by others as neglecting their child’s oral health due to the black staining. Both parents and children were more accepting of the SDF when applied to less-visible posterior teeth. Parents accepted the use of SDF if such treatment avoided extractions under GA. Conclusion Despite the unfavourable aesthetics of SDF (black staining), parents appreciated SDF treatment, especially for uncooperative or younger children. However, both parents and children shared concerns about bullying at schools as a consequence of the black staining. Raising awareness about SDF was identified as one approach to encourage the uptake of SDF.

In this study, we explored the ongoing multiple and multi-dimensional transitions experienced by medicine, nursing and dentistry students due to graduate in summer 2020. Some graduated early to join the NHS workforce and others had their graduation deferred for a year due to lack of clinical experience. We explored the expectations and realities of their transition experiences; their perceptions of the impact of their transitions on them, their wellbeing, and on their significant others. This longitudinal study helped understand each individual’s adaptations to multiple concurrent changes over time. The cross-sectional data revealed trends and patterns for each group of graduates. This comic anthology presents the interpretations of interview data from doctor, nurse, and dentist graduates. The five comics present both individual and composite narratives of different participants. The visualisation of the data through comics was valuable to portray the wider context of COVID-19, and participants’ related transition experiences and emotions.

The global COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has highlighted the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and social care personnel. This is a really important issue for dentistry, where we place great emphasis on infection control and universal precautions, given the nature of care provided. Cochrane have recently updated their review of PPE for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. It examined evidence on which type of full body PPE and which method of donning (putting on) or doffing (removing) are most effective, while having the least risk of contamination or infection for healthcare workers, as well as which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. The objective of this paper is to raise awareness of the above review of PPE, its findings and their relevance to dentistry as outlined in the Cochrane Oral Health website. The available evidence comes from healthcare generally, mostly involving simulation exercises, and is of low or very low certainty. None of the evidence specifically comes from dentistry. The findings in relation to the nature of PPE, methods of donning and doffing, and the importance of training are all of practical relevance to dentistry. Research is critically important to provide evidence for future decision making in support of patients and staff.

Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program (project number 07/44/03). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA program, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. Background The Filling Children’s Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to explore the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of managing dental caries in children’s primary teeth. The trial compared three management strategies: conventional caries management with best practice prevention (C + P), biological management with best practice prevention (B + P) and best practice prevention alone (PA)-based approaches. Recently, the concept of treatment acceptability has gained attention and attempts have been made to provide a conceptual definition, however this has mainly focused on adults. Recognising the importance of evaluating the acceptability of interventions in addition to their effectiveness, particularly for multi-component complex interventions, the trial design included a qualitative component. The aim of this component was to explore the acceptability of the three strategies from the perspectives of the child participants and their parents. Methods Qualitative exploration, based on the concept of acceptability. Participants were children already taking part in the FiCTION trial and their parents. Children were identified through purposive maximum variation sampling. The sample included children from the three management strategy arms who had been treated and followed up; median (IQR) follow-up was at 33.8 (23.8, 36.7) months. Semi-structured interviews with thirteen child-parent dyads. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. Results Data saturation was reached after thirteen interviews. Each child-parent dyad took part in one interview together. The participants were eight girls and five boys aged 5–11 years and their parents. The children’s distribution across the trial arms was: C + P n = 4; B + P n = 5; PA n = 4. Three key factors influenced the acceptability of caries management in primary teeth to children and parents: i) experiences of specific procedures within management strategies; ii) experiences of anticipatory dental anxiety and; iii) perceptions of effectiveness (particularly whether pain was reduced). These factors were underpinned by a fourth key factor: the notion of trust in the dental professionals – this was pervasive across all arms. Conclusions Overall children and parents found each of the three strategies for the management of dental caries in primary teeth acceptable, with trust in the dental professional playing an important role. Publisher PDF

Introduction There has been speculation about early exfoliation of carious primary molar teeth treated with the Hall Technique (HT).Aim To investigate the hypothesis that there is a difference in exfoliation times between teeth treated with the HT and contralateral teeth not treated with the HT.Methods Split-mouth retrospective cohort study of children treated in Dundee Dental Hospital and School (DDHS). Radiographs and clinical records were assessed to compare children's ages at exfoliation for HT-treated primary molars and their contralateral teeth not treated with the HT. Primary molars' root resorption was also evaluated to assess whether the HT influenced the rate of root resorption.Results Using DDHS's clinical systems, children's records (n = 13,160) were screened for children's ages and sequential radiographs, with 192 children potentially eligible. After assessing radiographs and clinical records, 39 children met the inclusion criteria. Their mean age at time of HT treatment was 7.2 years (range = 4.0 to 11.0; SD = 1.5). There was no evidence of a difference (p = 0.41) between children's ages at exfoliation of HT teeth (10.7; SD = 1.2 years) and contralateral teeth (11.0; SD = 1.4 years).Conclusion There is no evidence that use of the Hall Technique is associated with early exfoliation of primary molars.

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is a clear, odourless liquid indicated for desensitisation of non-carious tooth lesions and molar incisor hypomineralisation. It is also useful for arresting carious lesions in adults and children who are high caries-risk and/or have difficult-to-control, progressing carious lesions, those who are unable to tolerate invasive treatment, elderly populations, and those who are medically compromised or have additional care and support needs. SDF may be used to manage lesions that are too extensive to restore but not associated with pain and/or infection. This can be important particularly where extractions might be contra-indicated for medical or behavioural reasons. This paper summarises the global evidence for the effectiveness and safety of SDF, describes what it is, its mechanisms of action and presents recommendations on how to use it. There are details on indications/contra-indications and risks/benefits to be considered in the use of SDF also discussion of how to approach SDF's side effect of black staining of carious tooth tissue. We give an example of an information sheet (Appendix S1, see online supplementary information) that may be used when discussing SDF with patients, particularly for primary teeth in children, but adaptable for the permanent dentition and for adults.

Introduction: Preformed metal crowns (PMC) placed using the Hall Technique (HT) are effective for managing carious lesions in primary molars and might be tolerable and successful for children with learning disabilities (CLD), possibly avoiding the need for sedation/ anaesthesia.Aim To investigate the effectiveness of the HT for management of carious lesions in children with learning disabilities through a prospective service evaluation. Methods: Sixteen, 4-12-year-old CLD had 27 carious lesions managed using the HT and were followed-up. Outcomes were: 1) incidence of dental pain/infection; 2) success of treatment outcomes as judged by patients and parents/carers; and 3) adverse outcomes. Results: Twenty seven teeth treated with HT were followed up for five to 87 months (mean = 24) with no episodes of pain and/or infection in treated teeth. Treatment was rated as causing no discomfort in 80% of children and as successful by 98% of children; 96% of parents/carers, and 100% of dentists. Other adverse outcomes; occlusal surface perforation (n = 8; 30%). Conclusion: The HT was acceptable to, and effective in treating carious lesions in CLD who were unable to accept traditional restorative treatment. This alternative treatment option may avoid the need for general anaesthesia.

Aim\ud \ud To estimate the global prevalence of early childhood caries using the WHO criteria.\ud Design\ud \ud Systematic review of studies published from 1960 to 2019. Data sources: PubMed, Google Scholar, SciELO, and LILACS. Eligibility criteria were articles using: dmft-WHO diagnostic criteria with calibrated examiners, probability sampling, and sample sizes. Study selection: Two reviewers searched, screened, and extracted information from the selected articles. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The protocol is available on PROSPERO 2014 registration code CRD42014009578.\ud Results\ud \ud From 472 reports, 214 used WHO criteria and 125 fit the inclusion criteria. Sixty-four reports of 67 countries (published 1992-2019) had adequate data to be summarised in the meta-analysis. They covered 29 countries/59018 children. Global random-effects pooled prevalence was (percentage[95% CI]) 48[43, 53]. The prevalence by continent was Africa: 30[19, 45]; Americas: 48 [42, 54]; Asia: 52[43, 61]; Europe: 43[24, 66]; and Oceania: 82[73, 89]. Differences across countries explain 21.2% of the observed variance.\ud Conclusions\ud \ud Early childhood caries is a global health problem, affecting almost half of preschool children. Results are reported from 29 of 195 countries. ECC prevalence varied widely, and there was more variance attributable to between-country differences rather than continent or change over time.

Evidence supports minimally invasive dentistry, and we have a better understanding of dental caries as a biofilm-mediated disease. These factors, together with the current need to reduce aerosol generation, make treatment approaches such as the Hall Technique and the use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) more relevant than ever. Successful treatment planning depends on carious lesions being detected, their status accurately assessed, and a correct diagnosis made. Choosing the most appropriate treatment options for the tooth and child relies on marrying this with a precise history and an understanding of indications and contraindications for treatments. This article outlines the optimal use of the Hall Technique and SDF, allowing dental practitioners and therapists to use these modalities as less invasive approaches to provide the highest quality treatment for children with dental caries; less is more.

Background Dental caries in adolescents remains a significant public health problem with few oral health promotion interventions aimed at reducing dental caries in secondary school-aged students. Previous oral health and mobile health (mHealth) research has suggested the need for the development of a school-based behaviour change intervention incorporating a digital component. This study aimed to describe the development process of a behaviour change intervention to improve the oral health of students aged 11–16 years attending secondary schools in the UK. Methods A six-step process was used to develop the complex intervention informed by behaviour change theory and involving students, young people, parents and teachers in the process. The steps were: (1) identifying the target behaviours, namely tooth brushing with a fluoride toothpaste (2) identifying the theoretical basis and developing the causal model (3) reviewing the relevant literature and developing the logic model (4) designing the intervention with young people, parents and school staff (5) specifying the intervention content and (6) translating this content into features of the intervention and piloting. Results The resultant intervention included a quality-assured classroom-based session (CBS) (guided by a lesson plan and teaching resources), delivered by school teachers which was embedded within the school curriculum. This CBS was followed by a series of (Short Message Service) SMS texts delivered twice daily to student’s mobile telephones with the content, duration and timing of the messages informed by involvement of students and young people. Conclusions An intervention to improve the oral health of secondary school students through improved tooth brushing was rigorously developed based on behaviour change theory and work with young people, parents and school staff. Further research is needed to evaluate the outcomes and processes involved following the delivery of this intervention. BRIGHT Trial Trial Registration ISRCTN12139369.

Background: Unsuccessful restorative treatment of carious lesions in deciduous molars remains a priority for clinicians to resolve when caring for children's dentition. However, regardless of the material or technique used, standard restorative treatments continue to fail and present low survival rates. In an effort to solve these problems, a non-invasive technique known as the Hall Technique was developed with reduced adverse effects and is being studied over the last years, presenting great success in comparison with other restorative techniques. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to address the question concerning the survival of preformed metal crowns using the Hall Technique for restoring deciduous molars.Methods: Electronic databases and other sources, such as gray literature will be searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Non-Randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) will be included that assess the use of preformed metal crowns using the Hall Technique on primary molars. The outcome will be the cumulative survival rate of preformed metal crowns applied according to the Hall Technique. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence assessment. Any discrepancies in opinion will be resolved by a third reviewer who is considered to be an expert in the field. Assessment of the risk of bias of included studies will be evaluated by RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. The certainty of evidence will be determined using the GRADE tool. Methodological heterogeneity across studies will be evaluated to determine the best model for the meta-analysis.Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has addressed this gap directly. Findings obtained from the review will be valuable in the decision-making process regarding the use of Hall Technique preformed metal crowns for restoration of decayed primary molars.

Background Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process. Methods The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p Results The final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p Conclusions The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

Background: Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC). Objectives: To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), 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. Search methods: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions). Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Main results: We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth. Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2). Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions. Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth. The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions. The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT. Authors' conclusions: Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.

Aim:Early childhood caries (ECC) has significant public health implications but has received inadequate global attention. There is limited information regarding the success of oral health policies implemented to address the challenges of ECC. This review aimed to summarize such policies to tackle ECC from different countries/regions.Method:Independent collaborators from 14 countries/regions (Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Thailand, UK, USA, and Venezuela) collected the data. The ECC status, dental workforce, oral health policies on ECC prevention in different countries/regions were summarized by each country.Results:The findings indicated that ECC prevalence varied in different countries/regions. The lowest prevalence of ECC among 5-year-old children was found in Nigeria (7%), and the highest was found in Indonesia (90%). The existing dental workforce and resources are limited in most countries. The smallest dentist to population ratio was reported by Nigeria at 1:48,400, whereas the highest ratio was in Brazil (1:600). Out of 14, three (21%) countries namely India, Venezuela and Cambodia had no national oral health policies addressing ECC and four (29%) countries (Cambodia, China, India, Venezuela) had no publicly funded dental care program for 0–5-year-old children. Water fluoridation is available in four countries/regions (Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, USA).Conclusion:ECC remains a global health challenge and dental workforce is limited. National/regional programs to tackle ECC are not yet prioritized in many countries/regions. Evidence to support demonstration projects is limited. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of interventions strategies is required for policymakers.

Background This umbrella review comprehensively appraised evidence for silver diamine fluoride (SDF) to arrest and prevent root and coronal caries by summarizing systematic reviews. Adverse events were explored. Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO register and Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews investigating SDF for caries prevention or arrest (1970–2018) without language restrictions. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. Corrected covered area was calculated to quantify studies’ overlap across reviews. Results Eleven systematic reviews were included; four focussing on SDF for root caries in adults and seven on coronal caries in children. These cited 30 studies (4 root caries; 26 coronal caries) appearing 63 times. Five systematic reviews were of “low”, one “unclear” and five “high” risk of bias. Overlap of studies was very high (50% root caries; 17% coronal caries). High overlap and heterogeneity, mainly comparators and outcome measures, precluded meta-analysis. Results were grouped by aim and outcomes to present an overview of direction and magnitude of effect. SDF had a positive effect on prevention and arrest of coronal and root caries, consistently outperforming comparators (fluoride varnish, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, placebo). For root caries prevention, the prevented fraction (PF) was 25–71% higher for SDF compared to placebo (two systematic reviews with three studies) and PF = 100–725% for root caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies). For coronal caries prevention, PF = 70–78% (two systematic reviews with two studies) and PF = 55–96% for coronal caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies) with arrest rates of 65–91% (four systematic reviews with six studies). Eight systematic reviews reported adverse events, seven of which reported arrested lesions black staining. Conclusion Systematic reviews consistently supported SDF’s effectiveness for arresting coronal caries in the primary dentition and arresting and preventing root caries in older adults for all comparators. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on SDF for prevention in primary teeth and prevention and arrest in permanent teeth in children. No serious adverse events were reported. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-019-0830-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesAgainst the COVID-19 pandemic backdrop and potential disease transmission risk by dental procedures that can generate aerosol and droplets, this review aimed to identify which clinical dental procedures do generate droplets and aerosols with subsequent contamination, and for these, characterise their pattern, spread and settle.Data SourcesSix databases were searched and citation chasing undertaken (to 11/08/20).Study selectionScreening stages were undertaken in duplicate, independently, by two researchers. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another.ResultsEighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and covered: Ultrasonic scaling (USS, n=44), highspeed air-rotor (HSAR, n=31); oral surgery (n=11), slow-speed handpiece (n=4); air-water (triple) syringe (n=4), air-polishing (n=4), prophylaxis (n=2) and hand-scaling (n=2). Although no studies investigated respiratory viruses, those on bacteria, blood splatter and aerosol showed activities using powered devices produced the greatest contamination. Contamination was found for all activities, and at the furthest points studied. The operator’s torso operator’s arm, and patient’s body were especially affected. Heterogeneity precluded significant inter-study comparisons but intra-study comparisons allowed construction of a proposed hierarchy of procedure contamination risk: higher risk (USS, HSAR, air-water syringe [air only or air/water together], air polishing, extractions using motorised handpieces); moderate (slow-speed handpieces, prophylaxis with pumice, extractions) and lower (air-water syringe [water only] and hand scaling.ConclusionSignificant gaps in the evidence, low sensitivity of measures and variable quality limit firm conclusions around contamination for different procedures. However, a hierarchy of contamination from procedures can be proposed for challenge/verification by future research which should consider standardised methodologies to facilitate research synthesis.Clinical significanceThis manuscript addresses uncertainty around aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in dentistry. Findings indicate a continuum of procedure-related aerosol generation rather than the current binary AGP or non-AGP perspective. This informs discussion around AGPs and direct future research to help support knowledge and decision making around COVID-19 and dental procedures.

Introduction Clinicians' use, interpretation and application of evidence in everyday practice is fundamental to their delivery of appropriate, contemporary, high-quality dentistry. Little is known about whether new dental graduates' (NDGs') perspectives and use of evidence-based practice (EBP) change when they enter professional practice.Aim To explore changes in NDGs' perception of EBP for: self-efficacy; knowledge of EBP principles; attitudes; confidence in appraisal skills; and frequency of accessing evidence.Methods Two pre-validated instruments: knowledge, attitude, confidence and accessing EBP resources, EBP confidence scale, and clinical scenarios. NDGs from one dental school completed the questionnaire upon graduation (R1) and six to nine months into vocational dental training (R2).Results Response rates of R1 were 34 (52%) and R2, 21 (62% of R1, 32% overall). Between R1 and R2, knowledge (median [25th-75th percentiles]: R1 = 4 [2.5-4]; R2 = 3 [2.8-3], p = 0.07), self-efficacy (R1 = 645 [587-782]; R2 = 630 [550-690], p = 0.8) and scores related to knowledge of gold standards were comparable. However, attitude (R1 = 38 [34-39], R2 = 27 [25-30]), confidence in appraisal skills (R1 = 16 [14-20], R2 = 11[8-16]) and frequency of accessing evidence (R1 = 26 [22-28]; R2 = 18 [16-19]) all showed statistically significant reductions.Conclusion After six months in professional practice, NDGs showed statistically significant reductions in the value they place on EBP, their EBP-related skills and their use of reliable evidence sources. There were no differences in their 'self-efficacy' knowledge of EBP principles.

Background\ud Unless clinical trials are well‐designed, there is a risk that they will not be usable to improve patient care.\ud \ud Aim\ud This paper discusses some factors important in designing clinical trials in paediatric dentistry. It uses the prevention and management of dental caries in children as the lens through which to look at these.\ud \ud Findings\ud Amongst the factors to consider are clear research questions and objectives; appropriate outcomes and outcome measures; sample size calculation and the level of randomisation; methods for random allocation; and operator/assessor training. Experts in trial design including statisticians and a trialist should be consulted early in the design process. The aspects of trial design unique to cariology trials such as ‘clustering’ of data items, mixed dentition issues and those related to trials involving children (communication, consent etc) should be considered. Comprehensive reporting of trial results is essential.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud There are many readily available resources and tools to help the researcher design a trial of good quality that will yield results useful to the research community and beyond, to those who will implement the findings and ultimately those who will benefit from them.

Introduction The current COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has impacted the delivery of dental care globally and has led to re-evaluation of infection control standards. However, lack of clarity around what is known and unknown regarding droplet and aerosol generation in dentistry (including oral surgery and extractions), and their relative risk to patients and the dental team, necessitates a review of evidence relating to specific dental procedures. This review is part of a wider body of research exploring the evidence on bioaerosols in dentistry and involves detailed consideration of the risk of contamination in relation to oral surgery. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS and ClinicalTrials.Gov was conducted using key terms and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) words relating to the review questions. Methodological quality including sensitivity was assessed using a schema developed to measure quality aspects of studies using a traffic light system to allow inter- and intra-study overview and comparison. A narrative synthesis was conducted for assessment of the included studies and for the synthesis of results. Results Eleven studies on oral surgery (including extractions) were included in the review. They explored microbiological (bacterial and fungal) and blood (visible and/or imperceptible) contamination at the person level (patients, operators and assistants) and/or at a wider environmental level, using settle plates, chemiluminescence reagents or air samplers; all within 1 m of the surgical site. Studies were of generally low to medium quality and highlighted an overall risk of contaminated aerosol, droplet and splatter generation during oral surgery procedures, most notably during removal of impacted teeth using rotatory handpieces. Risk of contamination and spread was increased by factors, including proximity to the operatory site, longer duration of treatment, higher procedural complexity, non-use of an extraoral evacuator and areas involving more frequent contact during treatment. Conclusion A risk of contamination (microbiological, visible and imperceptible blood) to patients, dental team members and the clinical environment is present during oral surgery procedures, including routine extractions. However, the extent of contamination has not been explored fully in relation to time and distance. Variability across studies with regards to the analysis methods used and outcome measures makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions. Further studies with improved methodologies, including higher test sensitivity and consideration of viruses, are required to validate these findings.

Background Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Hall Technique (HT) are both minimally invasive, non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs). They seem to have never been directly compared, nor has the HT been studied in a non-clinical setting. This study compared the HT and ART restorations placed in a school setting after 36 months. Methods Children (5–10 yo) who had a primary molar with a dentinal occluso-proximal, cavitated carious lesion were allocated to the ART (selective removal) or HT arms. Primary outcome: restoration survival over 36-months (using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, log rank test, and Cox regression). Secondary outcomes: (1) occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) (1, 2, 3, 4 weeks) and (2) child self-reported discomfort; (3) treatment acceptability (immediately following interventions); (4) Child Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), before treatment and after 6 months and (5) a post hoc analysis of time to tooth exfoliation (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 months). Results One-hundred and thirty-one children (ART = 65; HT = 66) were included (mean age = 8.1 ± 1.2). At 36 months, 112 (85.5%) children were followed-up. Primary outcome: restoration survival rates ART = 32.7% (SE = 0.08; 95% CI 0.17–0.47); HT = 93.4% (0.05; 0.72–0.99), p p = 0.018); (3) over 70% of children and parents showed a high acceptability for treatments, with crown aesthetics being a concern for around 23% of parents; (4) Child OHRQoL improved after 6 months; and (5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p = 0.007). Conclusions Both ART and the HT were acceptable to child participants and their parents and all parents thought both restorations protected their child’s tooth. However, the crown appearance concerned almost a quarter of parents in the HT arm. Children experienced less discomfort in the ART group. Although both treatments can be performed in a non-clinical setting and have the advantage of being non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs), the HT had almost three times higher survival rates (93.4%) for restoring primary molar occluso-proximal cavities compared to ART (32.7%). Trial registration This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02569047), 5th October 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02569047?cond=Hall+Technique+Atraumatic+Rest orative+Treatment&draw=2&rank=2.

BackgroundDespite evidence that Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) can be effective in managing carious lesions in primary teeth, the use of SDF in the UK remains limited. This study explored dental professionals’ views and experiences of using SDF for managing carious lesions in children. In addition, it explored what they perceived to be the advantages, disadvantages, barriers and enablers to the use of SDF in practice.MethodsFifteen semi-structured face-to-face or over-the-phone interviews were conducted with 14 dental professionals from NHS Tayside and NHS Grampian in Scotland. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic approach.ResultsThirteen of 14 dental professionals interviewed were familiar with, or had some existing knowledge of, SDF. Four had used it to treat patients. The majority of participants thought that the main advantage of SDF was that it required minimal patient cooperation. SDF was also perceived as a simple, pain-free and non-invasive treatment approach that could help acclimatise children to the dental environment. However, SDF-induced black staining of arrested carious lesions was most commonly reported as the main disadvantage and greatest barrier to using it in practice. Participants believed that this discolouration would concern some parents who may fear that the black appearance may instigate bullying at school and that others may judge parents as neglecting their child’s oral health. Participants thought that education of clinicians about SDF use and information sheets for parents would enhance the uptake of SDF in dental practice. Participants believed that younger children might not be as bothered by the discolouration as older ones and they anticipated greater acceptance of SDF for posterior primary teeth by both parents and children.ConclusionDental professionals were aware that SDF can be used for arresting carious lesions. They pointed out that the staining effect of carious lesions is a major disadvantage and had preconceived ideas that this could be a barrier for many parents. Participants considered the application process to be simple and non-invasive and requires a minimum level of child cooperation. Participants appreciated the potential of SDF in paediatric dentistry and suggested actions that could help overcome the barriers they highlighted.

The emergence of the novel virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has caused a global pandemic called coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) and has become one of the most significant challenges to the healthcare profession. Dental practices are focal points for cross‐infection, and care must be taken to minimise the risk of infection to, from, or between dental care professionals and patients. The COVID‐19 epidemiological and clinical characteristics are still being collated but children's symptoms seem to be milder than those that adults experience. It is unknown whether certain groups, for example children with comorbidities, might be at a higher risk of more severe illness. Emerging data on disease spread in children, affected by COVID‐19, have not been presented in detail. The purpose of this article was to report current data on the paediatric population affected with COVID‐19 and highlight considerations for dentists providing care for children during this pandemic. All members of the dental team have a professional responsibility to keep themselves informed of current guidance and be vigilant in updating themselves as recommendations are changing so quickly.

Background The lack of evidence for the effective management of carious lesions in children’s primary teeth has caused uncertainty for the dental profession and patients. Possible approaches include conventional and biological management alongside best practice prevention, and best practice prevention alone. The FiCTION trial assessed the effectiveness of these options, and included a qualitative study exploring dental professionals’ (DPs) experiences of delivering the different treatment arms. This paper reports on how DPs managed children with carious lesions within FiCTION and how this related to their everyday experiences of doing dentistry. Methods Overall, 31 DPs from FiCTION-trained dental surgeries in four regions of the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of the three treatment arms (conventional management of carious lesions and prevention (C + P), biological management of carious lesions and prevention (B + P) or prevention alone (PA)). A theoretical framework, drawing on social practice theory (SPT), was developed for analysis. Results Participants discussed perceived effectiveness of, and familiarity with, the three techniques. The C + P arm was familiar, but some participants questioned the effectiveness of conventional restorations. Attitudes towards the B + P arm varied in terms of familiarity, but once DPs were introduced to the techniques, this was seen as effective. While prevention was familiar, PA was described as ineffective. DPs manage children with carious lesions day-to-day, drawing on previous experience and knowledge of the child to provide what they view as the most appropriate treatment in the best interests of each child. Randomisation undermined these normal choices. Several DPs reported deviating from the trial arms in order to treat a patient in a particular way. Participants valued evidence-based dentistry, and expect to use the results of FiCTION to inform future practice. They anticipate continuing to use the full range of treatment options, and to personally select appropriate strategies for individual children. Conclusions RCTs take place in the context of day-to-day practices of doing dentistry. DPs employ experiential and interpersonal knowledge to act in the best interests of their patients. Randomisation within a clinical trial can present a source of tension for DPs, which has implications for assuring individual equipoise in future trials.

Background A three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA). Methods Data on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Results A total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (− 0.06; 97.5% CI: − 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (− 0.14; 97.5% CI: − 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P. Conclusions The mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

BackgroundHistorically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated.ObjectivesThe objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression.DesignThis was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit.SettingThis trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales.ParticipantsParticipants were NHS patients aged 3–7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis.InterventionsThree interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth).Main outcome measuresThe clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period.ResultsA total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm,n = 386; biological arm,n = 381; prevention alone arm,n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm,n = 352; biological arm,n = 352; prevention alone arm,n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8–36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was –0.02 (97.5% confidence interval –0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval –0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis.ConclusionsThere was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period.Future workRecommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Hall Technique (HT), Non-Restorative Cavity Control (NRCC) and conventional carious tissue removal and restoration (CR) are strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars. A randomized controlled three-arm parallel group trial in a university clinic in Germany was used to measure the cost-effectiveness of these strategies. 142 children (HT: 40; NRCC: 44; CR: 58) were followed over a mean 2.5 years. A German healthcare perspective was chosen. The primary outcome was estimated molar survival; secondary outcomes were not needing extraction, not having pain or needing endodontic treatment/extraction, or not needing any re-intervention at all. Initial, maintenance and endodontic/restorative/extraction re-treatment costs were derived from fee items of the statutory insurance. Cumulative cost-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. HT molars survived longer (estimated mean; 95% CI: 29.7; 26.6–30.5 months) than NRCC (25.3; 21.2–28.7 months) and CR molars (24.1; 22.0–26.2 months). HT was also less costly (66; 62–71 Euro) than NRCC (296; 274–318 Euro) and CR (83; 73–92 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than NRCC and CR in >96% of samples, and had acceptable cost-effectiveness regardless of a payer’s willingness-to-pay. This superior cost-effectiveness was confirmed for secondary health outcomes. Cost-advantages were even more pronounced when costs were calculated per year of tooth retention (mean annual costs were HT: 29, NRCC: 154, CR: 61 Euro). HT was more cost-effective than CR or NRCC for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, yielding better dental health outcomes at lower costs. If choosing between these three strategies for managing cavitated caries lesions in primary molars, dentists should prefer HT over NRCC or CR. This would also save costs for the healthcare payer.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were reported for carious primary molars treated with the Hall technique (HT) as compared with conventional carious tissue removal and restorations (i.e., conventional restoration [CR]) in a 5-y randomized controlled practice-based trial in Scotland. We interrogated this data set further to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HT versus CR. A total of 132 children who had 2 matched occlusal/occlusal-proximal carious lesions in primary molars ( n = 264 teeth) were randomly allocated to HT or CR, provided by 17 general dental practitioners. Molars were followed up for a mean 5 y. A societal perspective was taken for the economic analysis. Direct dental treatment costs were estimated from a Scottish NHS perspective (an NHS England perspective was taken for a sensitivity analysis). Initial, maintenance, and retreatment costs, including rerestorations, endodontic treatments, and extractions, were estimated with fee items. Indirect/opportunity costs were estimated with time and travel costs from a UK perspective. The primary outcome was tooth survival. Secondary outcomes included 1) not having pain or needing endodontic treatments/extractions and 2) not needing rerestorations. Cost-effectiveness and acceptability were estimated from bootstrapped samples. Significantly more molars in HT survived (99%, 95% CI: 98% to 100%) than in CR (92%; 87% to 97%). Also, the proportion of molars retained without pain or requiring endodontic treatment/extraction was significantly higher in HT than CR. In the base case analysis (NHS Scotland perspective), cumulative direct dental treatment costs (Great British pound [GBP]) of HT were 24 GBP (95% CI: 23 to 25); costs for CR were 29 (17 to 46). From an NHS England perspective, the cost advantage of HT (29 GBP; 95% CI: 25 to 34) over CR (107; 86 to 127) was more pronounced. Indirect/opportunity costs were significantly lower for HT (8 GBP; 95% CI: 7 to 9) than CR (19; 16 to 23). Total cumulative costs were significantly lower for HT (32 GBP; 95% CI: 31 to 34) than CR (49; 34 to 69). Based on a long-term practice-based trial, HT was more cost-effective than CR with HT retained for longer and experiencing less complications at lower costs.

OBJECTIVE To systematically assess the methodological quality of Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MA) published in Paediatric Dentistry journals and to analyse the relationship between the authors, journals, country, review topic, and the year of publication to the methodological quality of SRs and MA. DESIGN Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P

To summarize current concepts in carious tissue removal. Traditionally, caries has been seen as an infectious disease and was treated by attempted complete removal of all cariogenic bacteria. The logical traditional aim of carious tissue removal—removing all bacteria from carious lesions—no longer applies. The contemporary aim of carious tissue removal is to maximize restoration longevity, without unnecessarily removing sound or remineralizable dentin. This is based on recent perspectives that dental caries is a biofilm-based and lifestyle-mediated disorder. In shallow lesions, as much carious tissue as possible should be removed, with removal until hard dentin is felt around the periphery of a cavity (to maximize restoration survival and seal the cavity) while centrally firm dentin is left (to retain remineralizable dentin). For deep lesions in teeth with vital pulps (without irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis), maintaining pulp vitality is the priority. Dentists should aim to avoid pulp exposure and accept leaving soft or leathery dentin in areas close to the dental pulp, while at the periphery, carious tissue should be removed until hard tissue is felt, ensuring that any remaining bacteria are sealed and inactivated and that the restoration has sufficient mechanical support against masticatory forces. An alternative for deep lesions is stepwise removal. Carious tissue strategies where no carious tissue removal at all is performed include sealing using plastic materials or stainless steel crowns, or non-restorative cavity control. A range of carious tissue removal strategies are available and should be applied according to lesion characteristics, pulp vitality, and other patient related factors. Always striving to remove carious tooth tissue until hard dentin remains is not in line with current evidence and not recommended.

Randomized control trial (RCT) methodology has compared interventions for the prevention and management of dental caries since the late 1960s. Despite almost 50 years and evidence of significant wastage within the wider biomedical research field, there has been little investigation into what works well and where weaknesses lie. This paper aims to draw attention to areas for improvement within cariology clinical trial methodology by summarizing systematic reviews on interventions and outcomes, and using examples to illustrate some challenges with intervention delivery fidelity, outcome analyses, and intervention co-production. Trial design stage choices are critical to ensure that optimum information is obtained when testing interventions. Intervention choice, outcome choice, and analyses are particularly important, and cariology trials have specific issues associated with them. A systematic search and review of cariology RCTs found 650 RCT reports. Social Network Analysis of interventions revealed a high degree of separation between prevention and management trials, gaps in clinically important comparisons, and a tendency for there to be comparisons within groups; e.g., comparison of interventions within the same, rather than different, levels of invasiveness. Outcomes measured for the same trial reports show: a focus on restoration performance and individual/population caries burden; the growing use of carious lesion activity and economic-related outcomes; and sparse, although an increase in the use of, patient-reported/patient-centered outcomes. Fidelity of adherence to complex interventions can be challenging to measure but is important in interpreting trial findings. Involving target populations in intervention design, delivery, and relating it to the planned rollout, are opportunities to ensure intervention relevance and improved uptake. Outcomes analyses should consider the minimum clinically important differences and outcome relevance measures for the target population. Factors underlying trialists' comparator and outcome choices need to be identified, and there is a need to ensure that a minimum dataset of outcomes allow for combination and comparisons of trial data for systematic review.