When to intervene in the caries process? An expert Delphi consensus statement.

OBJECTIVES: To define an expert Delphi consensus on when to intervene in the caries process and on existing carious lesions using non- or micro-invasive, invasive/restorative or mixed interventions. METHODS: Non-systematic literature synthesis, expert Delphi consensus process and expert panel conference. RESULTS: Carious lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Inactive lesions do not require treatment (in some cases, restorations will be placed for reasons of form, function and aesthetics); active lesions do. Non-cavitated carious lesions should be managed non- or micro-invasively, as should most cavitated carious lesions which are cleansable. Cavitated lesions which are not cleansable usually require invasive/restorative management, to restore form, function and aesthetics. In specific circumstances, mixed interventions may be applicable. On occlusal surfaces, cavitated lesions confined to enamel and non-cavitated lesions radiographically extending deep into dentine (middle or inner dentine third, D2/3) may be exceptions to that rule. On proximal surfaces, cavitation is hard to assess visually or by using tactile methods. Hence, radiographic lesion depth is used to determine the likelihood of cavitation. Most lesions radiographically extending into the middle or inner third of the dentine (D2/3) can be assumed to be cavitated, while those restricted to the enamel (E1/2) are not cavitated. For lesions radiographically extending into the outer third of the dentine (D1), cavitation is unlikely, and these lesions should be managed as if they were non-cavitated unless otherwise indicated. Individual decisions should consider factors modifying these thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive diagnostics are the basis for systematic decision-making on when to intervene in the caries process and on existing carious lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Carious lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Invasive treatments should be applied restrictively and with these factors in mind.

Some orthodontists' experiences of volunteering for a community orthodontic initiative.

INTRODUCTION: In society, dental professionals, including orthodontists, are often viewed as being solely motivated by money. Nevertheless, numerous orthodontists volunteer for community initiatives where they provide free or heavily subsidized treatment for underserved populations. This study explores the motivations of a group of New Zealand orthodontists who volunteered for one of these initiatives, Wish For A Smile (WFAS), as well as the high and low points of this work. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 11 orthodontists who volunteer for WFAS. An inductive data analysis of the data was undertaken and a descriptive qualitative method was chosen. RESULTS: Most participants volunteered for WFAS because they desired to give back to the community. High points of their voluntary work were seeing patients' self-esteem, happiness, and future life chances increase as a result of treatment. Low points included seeing the challenging life circumstances of some WFAS patients and treating some adolescents who appeared not to qualify. A number of participants said WFAS patients were more grateful and cooperative than fee-paying patients, whereas others reported the opposite. CONCLUSIONS: There are many reasons why orthodontists volunteer for orthodontic community initiatives, although many may be motivated by a sense of social responsibility to give back to the community.

The Hall Technique and conventional restorative treatment in New Zealand children's primary oral health care - clinical outcomes at two years.

BACKGROUND: New Zealand children's oral health care is mostly provided in primary care oral health clinics. Little is known about treatment outcomes. HYPOTHESIS/AIM: To investigate different treatment outcomes of primary molar carious lesions in a sample of children in primary care. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study of 180 5- to 8-year-old children. Each child had one carious primary molar treated by a dental therapist with a plastic restorative material (PRM) or a pre-formed stainless steel crown placed with the Hall Technique (HT). After 2 years, restorative outcomes were categorised as success, minor failure, or major failure. Data were analysed using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 147 (82%) children were followed up; mean follow-up period 25 months (range: 21-35 months). Failure was observed significantly more in the PRM group (32%) than the HT group (6%). When baseline carious lesions were radiographically deep with marginal ridge breakdown (MRB), there was a higher proportion of major failures than when they were shallow without MRB (33% and 1%, respectively; P < 0.001). Among the deep lesions, those treated with the HT showed better success than PRM. CONCLUSIONS: There was a much higher success rate in the children treated with HT than PRM. Deep carious lesions responded better to HT than PRM.

Should I eXtract Every Six dental trial (SIXES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extraction of lower first permanent molars in children is common. There is uncertainty among clinicians as to whether a 'compensating extraction' (removal of the upper first permanent molar to prevent it over erupting) is necessary despite current guidelines recommending this. As a result, unnecessary dental extractions may be carried out or children may be failing to receive extractions required to achieve optimal long-term oral health. In addition, the decision to extract fewer or more teeth affects management options (local anesthetic injections alone, inhalation sedation or general anesthesia) needed to support the child with the surgical procedure(s).The SIXES (Should I eXtract Every Six) dental trial investigates clinical effectiveness and quality of life for conventional treatment (following the guideline of compensation extraction of the upper first permanent molar) compared with the alternative intervention (removal of lower first permanent molars but no extraction of the upper). METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter, two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial. Allocation will be web-based randomization. Practitioners in primary and secondary care settings, reflecting the points of presentation and treatment of eligible patients, will recruit 400 children, aged 7 to 11 years requiring extraction of lower first permanent molars but who have upper first permanent molars of good prognosis. Baseline measures (prior to treatment) and outcome data (at one and five years, or when the patient reaches 14 years of age) will be assessed through study models and child/parent questionnaires.The primary outcome measure is degree of tipping of the lower second permanent molar, (favorable outcome is tipping less than 15°).The secondary outcomes are type of anesthetic/sedation used, residual spacing (between lower second premolar and second permanent molar), orthodontic treatment requirement, quality of life, and over-eruption in the intervention group. Assessors will be blinded where possible. DISCUSSION: SIXES dental trial investigates whether compensating extraction of upper first permanent molars should be carried out following loss of lower first permanent molars. Currently dentists and orthodontists face a dilemma in clinical decision-making, relying on the lowest level of evidence - expert opinion. SIXES will provide evidence to support decision-making and inform practices and may result in reduced tooth extractions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01591265.