Teaching Cariology in Asia and Arabia.

The European Organisation for Caries Research education platform 2020 had the aim to assess the undergraduate curriculum in cariology in Asian and Arabian countries in order to support structured teaching of cariology in these countries with about almost half of the global population. Representatives of 4 Asian and 4 Arabian countries completed a comprehensive questionnaire on structure of dental education in their country in general and the extent, the content, the responsibilities, structure and standardization regarding cariology in particular. In spite of a wide range from very few universities (Lebanon 3) to larger numbers of dental schools (India 313, China 121, Russia 52) there were similar statements on the list of content for cariology teaching. Often the catalogue was close to the Undergraduate Core Curriculum in Cariology (UCCC) covering most of the 5 domains from basic science to dental public health, but a national curriculum for cariology or dentistry was mostly missing. With various departments being involved, a need of coordination is obvious. Most representatives thought it possible and feasible to teach a standardized curriculum in cariology on the basis of the UCCC. In conclusion, many Arabian and Asian countries have implemented modern, evidence-based curricula in their universities, but an obligatory national curriculum in cariology would be advisable to standardize the quality in teaching.

How to Intervene in the Caries Process: Dentin Caries in Primary Teeth.

For an ORCA/EFCD consensus, this review systematically assessed available evidence regarding interventions performed and materials used to manage dentin carious lesions in primary teeth. A search for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 12 months after intervention was performed in PubMed, LILACS, BBO, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA Statement were used for assessment of the included studies. From 101 screened articles, 2 SRs and 5 RCTs, which assessed the effectiveness of interventions in terms of pulp vitality and success of restoration, and 10 SRs and 1 RCT assessing the success of restorative materials were included. For treatments involving no carious tissue removal, the Hall technique showed lower treatment failure for approximal carious lesions compared to complete caries removal (CCR) and filling. For the treatment of deep carious lesions, techniques involving selective caries removal (SCR) showed a reduction in the incidence of pulp exposure. However, the benefit of SCR over CCR in terms of pulp symptoms or restoration success/failure was not confirmed. Regarding restorative materials, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) used to restore multisurface lesions showed the highest success rates compared to other restorative materials (amalgam, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, and compomer), and in the long term (12-48 months) these were also less likely to fail. There is limited evidence supporting the use of PMCs to restore carious lesions with single cavities. Among nonrestorative options, silver diammine fluoride was significantly more effective in arresting caries than other treatments for treating active carious lesions of different depths. Considerable heterogeneity and bias risk were observed in the included studies. Although heterogeneity observed among the studies was substantial, the trends were similar. In conclusion, less invasive caries approaches involving selective or no caries removal seem advantageous in comparison to CCR for patients presenting with vital, symptomless, carious dentin lesions in primary teeth. There is evidence in favor of PMCs for restoring multisurface carious lesions in primary molars.