Citizen science to improve patient and public involvement in GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry (the GUIDE platform).

BACKGROUND: Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry. METHODS: We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms. CONCLUSION: Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript.

Do electronic cigarette devices/vapes impact the colour of dental ceramics?

DESIGN: In vitro primary research study. CASE SELECTION AND METHOD: Five frequently used restorative dental ceramic materials (pressable ceramics (PEmax), pressed and layered ceramics (LEmax), layered zirconia (LZr), monolithic zirconia (MZr) and porcelain fused to metal (PFM)) were selected and manufactured in shade A1. Samples of each material were prepared in discs and kept in water at 37°C for 24 hours then aged via thermocycling. Samples were positioned in a plastic chamber to mimic the intraoral setting and exposed to vape smoke through an artificial lung vacuum system. The procedure was repeated until target exposure puffs were achieved, ranging from 250-1500 puffs. The ECDs/vape device, refill juice and concentration used for puff generation were chosen based on a survey reporting high consumption. A spectrophotometer was used to measure sample colour through L*a*b values (lightness, axes of green, red, blue and yellow). CIELAB formula was used to calculate total colour difference (∆E) at six time intervals. DATA ANALYSIS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's posthoc testing was used to compare mean ∆E values with 95% confidence intervals for all specimens. Cut off for significance was α < 0.05. RESULTS: All ceramics showed colour variation following exposure to ECD aerosol. With the exception of PEmax, all tested materials lightness values changed following exposure to 250 puffs. At 1500 puff exposures, LEmax, LZr and MZr showed significant colour changes, whereas PEmax and PFM showed clinically acceptable and insignificant change. CONCLUSIONS: Colour change of dental ceramics varies depending on the ceramic material used and puff exposure number. Exposure to ECD aerosols can result in aesthetically noticeable colour changes in LEmax, LZr and MZr. Colour changes demonstrated are less than those caused by traditional tobacco smoking.

Are zirconia crowns the superior choice when restoring primary posterior molars?

Data sources Electronic database searches were carried out using predefined search terms using Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. The Trip medical database was also used to identify randomised control trials investigating stainless steel and zirconia crowns. Studies published from 1 January 2000 until 6 June 2021 were included, and reference lists of included studies analysed to ensure data saturation along with grey literature searches.Study selection Inclusion criteria included research published in English only, randomised control trials investigating the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of zirconia crowns compared to stainless steel crowns, the rehabilitation of pulp-treated posterior primary teeth and randomised control trials with children in good health. Expert opinion, case reports and reviews were excluded. Studies with a follow-up period of less than 12 months, studies including children with special care requirements or non-compliant children were also excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers (AKP, VKC) were involved with the primary search of abstracts and titles independently; both reviewers were involved in full text assessment. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (NRV). The study characteristics, number of teeth evaluated, follow-up duration, type of zirconia and stainless steel crowns, outcome assessed and outcome results were extracted. Extracted data was analysed using Review Manager, Version 5.3 and dichotomous data was summarised as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data was summarised as mean difference. Heterogeneity was summarised by I2 scores and a random-effects model and Mantel-Haenszel statistical test was used.Results From the initial 641 studies screened, six studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and were included for analysis. Risk of bias assessment for the included studies was graded as 'low' for three of the six included studies and 'some concern' for the remaining three studies. This was based upon allocation concealment in the randomised control trials. Clinical failures were observed in 63 of 497 events. Rehabilitation with zirconia crowns may result in less clinical failures than stainless steel crowns: risk ratio 0.48; 95% CI (0.15-1.52) p = 0.021. Gingival health was better with zirconia rather than stainless steel crowns: risk ratio 0.32; 95% CI (-0.42-0.23) p <0.001.Conclusions Primary posterior teeth restored with zirconia crowns may have 52% less risk of experiencing clinical failures than teeth with stainless steel crowns and better gingival health than stainless steel crowns, observed after 12 months. However, due to the low quality of included studies and 'very low' grade rating of the evidence provided, further clinical trials are required to provide further evidence on the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of zirconia and stainless steel crowns.

CORE OUTCOME SETS AND DENTAL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES.

In clinical research, outcomes are the results or 'endpoints' that are measured to assess whether clinical interventions have been successful or whether one treatment works better than another. There are a vast number of outcomes that have been reported in dental trials; the number, diversity and questionable relevance of these outcomes can lead to research wastage. Ultimately, this can lead to uncertainty for patients and dental professionals as to the most effective prevention and treatment options available as the evidence available may not use outcomes important to them. This article introduces the reader to core outcome sets (COS), covering the background to this area of research; their purpose and role; as well as the methodology of development. The authors reflect on their experience of leading the development of a core outcome set for periodontal trials and we highlight other dental COSs already developed and their inclusion of dental Patient Reported Outcomes (dPROs).

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.

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.

Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Teeth (SCRiPT) for the treatment of deep carious lesions: a randomised controlled clinical trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most adults experience dental caries during their lifetime and the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey reported that 85% of adults have at least one dental restoration. Conservative removal of tooth tissue for both primary and secondary caries reduces the risk of failure due to tooth-restoration, complex fracture as well as remaining tooth surfaces being less vulnerable to further caries. However, despite its prevalence there is no consensus on how much caries to remove prior to placing a restoration to achieve optimal outcomes. Evidence for selective compared to complete or near-complete caries removal suggests there may be benefits for selective removal in sustaining tooth vitality, therefore avoiding abscess formation and pain, so eliminating the need for more complex and costly treatment or eventual tooth loss. However, the evidence is of low scientific quality and mainly gleaned from studies in primary teeth. METHOD: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm patient randomised controlled clinical trial including an internal pilot set in primary dental care in Scotland and England. Dental health professionals will recruit 623 participants over 12-years of age with deep carious lesions in their permanent posterior teeth. Participants will have a single tooth randomised to either the selective caries removal or complete caries removal treatment arm. Baseline measures and outcome data (during the 3-year follow-up period) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. A mixed-method process evaluation will complement the clinical and economic outcome evaluation and examine implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. The primary outcome at three years is sustained tooth vitality. The primary economic outcome is net benefit modelled over a lifetime horizon. Clinical secondary outcomes include pulp exposure, progession of caries, restoration failure; as well as patient-centred and economic outcomes. DISCUSSION: SCRiPT will provide evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-beneficial approach to managing deep carious lesions in permanent posterior teeth in primary care. This will support general dental practitioners, patients and policy makers in decision making. Trial Registration Trial registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76503940. Date of Registration: 30.10.2019. URL of trial registry record: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76503940?q=ISRCTN76503940%20&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search .

Does a history of periodontal disease affect implant survival?

Data sources Three electronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) with date of publication between January 2003 and May 2018. Only articles written in English were included. Following electronic searches, the authors conducted manual searches of oral implant/periodontal journals from January 2012 to May 2018. In the event of disagreement on article selection, a further senior reviewer would make the final decision on its inclusion or exclusion following discussion.Study selection In total, 172 articles from the electronic search and ten from manual search were identified for initial screening. From the title and abstract, 18 articles were identified for full-text screening. Following this, 13 articles were included for quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The articles assessed the impact of history of periodontitis (HP) on implant survival, radiographic bone loss, pocket depth and bleeding on probing around the dental implant. All studies were either cohort or controlled studies. Seven of the 13 identified studies were prospective. Included studies fulfilled the following criteria: any human studies with supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) application, details of SPT provided in the studies for implant maintenance, compares the outcomes of implants from both patients with and without a HP and peri-implant conditions recorded.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to carry out quality assessment. Data was extracted to calculate risk ratio (RR) of implant survival, weighted mean difference (WMD) for radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index in patients with and without a HP.Results Implant survival rate was assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes also assessed were radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque indices. In implants with rough surfaces, the HP group showed a reduced implant survival rate (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, P <0.001) even under regular supportive post-implant treatment. They also showed more radiographic marginal bone loss (WMD: 0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.2-0.48, P <0.001), pocket depth (WMD: 0.47 mm, 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, P <0.001) and bleeding on probing (WMD: 0.08 mm, 95% CI: 0.04-0.11, P <0.001) when compared to the non-HP group. In implants with a machined surface, again the HP group had more radiographic bone loss (WMD: 0.88 mm, 95% CI: 0.65-1.11, P <0.001) than the non-HP group. However, in implants with machined surfaces, there was no statistically significant difference in survival rate between HP and non-HP groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92-1.04, P = 0.895).Conclusion In implants with rough surfaces, a history of periodontal disease has a negative impact on survival rate, even with SPT.

How can local anaesthesia be improved in the management of irreversible pulpitis?

Background Pain management in endodontic treatment is often managed with local anaesthetic, occasionally supplemented with oral medication. Currently, there is little evidence to suggest the best combination of local anaesthetic and oral medication to provide optimal pain control in symptomatic irreversible pulpits. A network meta-analysis was carried out to identify the best agent/technique for pulpal anaesthesia in both the maxilla and mandible in irreversible pulpits.Methods Electronic searches of Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar. Reference lists of suitable studies along with manual searches to identify further appropriate studies were also carried out. Sixty-one randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, investigating different local anaesthetic agents, methods of administration, and the adjunct use of medications and alternative therapies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data collection. Heterogeneity was assessed using chi-squared and I2 tests. Studies comparing the same interventions were pooled to define direct comparison estimates. A common comparator was used to compare indirect comparison estimates. Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate effect.Results The results were presented on forest plots; 53 studies investigated irreversible pulpitis in the mandible, seven studies in the maxilla and one in both. In the mandible, inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine was the control. Direct comparison of outcomes found that the best interventions in the mandible were pre-medication with aceclofenac and paracetamol followed by IANB, or IANB with 2% lidocaine with buccal infiltration with 4% articaine, both compared to the control alone. Indirect comparison found pre-medication with ibuprofen and paracetamol before IANB to be the best intervention compared to the control. No significant differences were found between the interventions in the maxilla.Conclusion The quality of all the included evidence was very low and further studies need to be carried out, focusing on larger sample sizes and better quality of studies.

A comparison of techniques for the explantation of osseointegrated dental implants.

Data sources A search of electronic databases (Embase and PubMed) was carried out along with manual and grey searches of published and unpublished journals. Publication year was from first available until 23 August 2018.Study selection Titles and abstracts from the original search were reviewed by two authors. Studies were chosen for full-text analysis and data extraction after inter-reviewer agreement. Disagreement was resolved by discussion and Cohen's kappa was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement. An initial search gave 2,197 articles and, following screening, 18 publications were included in the study. Five articles were case series and ten were case reports describing one to nine cases. Three publications reported on comparatively large sample sizes, one prospectively and two retrospectively. None of the studies had control groups or blinding. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Studies were deemed to have high, low or unclear levels of bias by two examiners. All were considered high risk of bias. Publications included fulfilled the following criteria: English language, human studies, endosseous osseointegrated dental implants, explantation technique described and reason for explantation clearly reported.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline process. Studies chosen for analysis were examined and the following data parameters were included: study design, number of patients, number of implants removed, implant system, reason for explantation, explantation technique and its success or failure, complications, flap access, socket grafting and immediate implant placement.Results The following five techniques for explantation of dental implants were identified: reverse torque, trephines, piezosurgery, burs and laser-assisted explantation. Reverse torque was the most commonly described technique (284 implants) with 87.7% success. Burs were used to remove 49 implants with 100% success, while trephines were used for explantation of 35 implants with 94% success. Piezosurgery and Er, Cr: YSGG laser removed 11 implants and one implant, respectively, with 100% success. One study reported perforation of the maxillary sinus floor following the use of a trephine technique, while another reported the fracture of three implants using reverse torque. The quality of the studies and lack of available data prevented further analysis. Results were presented in a narrative format.Conclusion The authors recommend reverse torque as the first choice for explantation. Despite its inferior success rate, it is the most conservative technique in terms of bone removal and flap access, meaning there is a greater opportunity for immediate implant placement.

Do viruses play a role in peri-implantitis?

Data sources A search of electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Oral Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) along with a manual search of various Science Citation Indexed journals.Study selection Four cross-sectional studies and one case-control study were included where percentage levels of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (HSV1), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) were sampled for in both peri-implantitis affected and healthy implant sites, with the latter used as the control. Studies were excluded that investigated any other infective agent, had fewer than ten participants, was performed in vitro or involved subjects with only periodontal disease.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline process. Two examiners used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to determine overall study quality while the key information was extracted and tabulated for comparison. The data was analysed using Chi-squared test and I2 test for heterogenicity with a random effects or fixed affect models applied as appropriate. Risk difference of outcomes was displayed via a forest plot with 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were generated to evaluate publication bias.Results All four cross-sectional studies searched for EBV, while three also looked for CMV. The case-control study included investigated for HSV1 presence only. EBV presence in peri-implantitis sites was found to be statistically significant in three of the four studies despite obvious heterogeneity. CMV presence at peri-implantitis sites was statistically significant in all relevant studies, but the data displayed notable heterogeneity so as to render it insignificant. HSV1 exhibited similar percentage frequency in both healthy and diseased implant sites.Conclusions Virus prevalence was found to be increased in patients with peri-implantitis when compared to healthy sites but this assertion must be treated with caution as the data supporting it is weak due to the limited number of studies involved and the significant inherent heterogeneity they displayed.

WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I2 = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults.

BACKGROUND: Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists). SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I2 = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.

One-to-one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health.

BACKGROUND: Effective oral hygiene measures carried out on a regular basis are vital to maintain good oral health. One-to-one oral hygiene advice (OHA) within the dental setting is often provided as a means to motivate individuals and to help achieve improved levels of oral health. However, it is unclear if one-to-one OHA in a dental setting is effective in improving oral health and what method(s) might be most effective and efficient. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of one-to-one OHA, provided by a member of the dental team within the dental setting, on patients' oral health, hygiene, behaviour, and attitudes compared to no advice or advice in a different format. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 November 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 10 November 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 November 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials (10 November 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Reference lists of relevant articles and previously published systematic reviews were handsearched. The authors of eligible trials were contacted, where feasible, to identify any unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of one-to-one OHA delivered by a dental care professional in a dental care setting with a minimum of 8 weeks follow-up. We included healthy participants or participants who had a well-defined medical condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors carried out selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Consensus was achieved by discussion, or involvement of a third review author if required. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review with data available for a total of 4232 participants. The included studies reported a wide variety of interventions, study populations, clinical outcomes and outcome measures. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies and it was not deemed appropriate to pool data in a meta-analysis. We summarised data by categorising similar interventions into comparison groups.Comparison 1: Any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHAFour studies compared any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHA.Two studies reported the outcome of gingivitis. Although one small study had contradictory results at 3 months and 6 months, the other study showed very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at all time points (very low-quality evidence).The same two studies reported the outcome of plaque. There was low-quality evidence that these interventions showed a benefit for OHA in plaque reduction at all time points.Two studies reported the outcome of dental caries at 6 months and 12 months respectively. There was very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at 12 months.Comparison 2: Personalised one-to-one OHA versus routine one-to-one OHAFour studies compared personalised OHA versus routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).Comparison 3: Self-management versus professional OHAFive trials compared some form of self-management with some form of professional OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis or plaque (very low quality). None of the studies measured dental caries.Comparison 4: Enhanced one-to-one OHA versus one-to-one OHASeven trials compared some form of enhanced OHA with some form of routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend any specific one-to-one OHA method as being effective in improving oral health or being more effective than any other method. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to determine the most effective, efficient method of one-to-one OHA for oral health maintenance and improvement. The design of such trials should be cognisant of the limitations of the available evidence presented in this Cochrane Review.

The use of chlorhexidine in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after third molar extractions.

Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline through PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, ISI Web of Science, Evidence-Based Dentistry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the Spanish General University Board database of doctoral theses in Spain (TESEO), the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) bibliographic databases, and the Spanish Medical Index (IME).Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) (with or without placebo) of patients of any age or gender who underwent maxillary or mandibular third molar extractions. Studies were required to have analysed the efficacy of only chlorhexidine in any concentration, formulation or treatment regimen for preventing alveolar osteitis (AO). There was no language restriction.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was carried out independently by two researchers, and a third researcher was consulted in case of disagreements. When explicit data were not stated in the text, they were calculated using data from the tables where possible. In addition, authors were contacted to obtain any necessary missing information. Datasets were assessed for heterogeneity, and meta-analysis was conducted on homogenous datasets. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots. The research was conducted and is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ResultsTwenty-three studies published from 1979 to 2015, corresponding to 18 trials (16 parallel-group and two split-mouth RCTs), that reported on 2,824 third molar extractions (1,458 in experimental group and 1,366 in control group) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P<.0001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity (I2 = 9.3%; P = 0.336 by X2 test). The number needed to treat was eight (95% CI, 7-11). There were no differences between chlorhexidine rinse (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71) and gel (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60) for the prevention of AO after third molar extractions. Chlorhexidine did not cause more adverse reactions than placebo.ConclusionsThe use of chlorhexidine, in any formulation (rinse or gel), concentration (0.12% or 0.20%), or regimen (before, during and/or after surgery), is efficacious and effective in preventing AO in patients who have undergone third molar extraction. The findings showed that in order to prevent one case of AO, eight patients would have to be treated with chlorhexidine. Chlorhexidine gel was found to be moderately more efficacious than the rinse formulation.

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health.

BACKGROUND: Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.To determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).To report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Gingivitis After 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation). Plaque Plaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months. Extrinsic tooth staining There was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months. Calculus Results for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive. Effect of concentration and frequency of rinsing There were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing. Other adverse effects The adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Löe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.

Orthodontic retention--three methods trialed.

DESIGN: Single centre randomised controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Patients treated by a single orthodontist were randomised to one of three retention methods: removable vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) covering the palate and the maxillary anterior teeth from canine-to-canine and bonded canine-to-canine retainer in the lower arch (group V-CTC); maxillary VFR combined with stripping of the lower anterior teeth (group V-S); prefabricated positioner covering all erupted teeth in the maxilla and the mandible (group P). All retention appliances were provided within one hour of debonding. OUTCOME MEASURE: Dental study casts were taken before treatment, at appliance removal and five years or more out of retention. Little's irregularity index, intercanine and intermolar width, arch length and overbite/overjet were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were randomised to each group with 69 completing the two-year retention period (24 in V-CTC group; 23 in V-S group; 22 in P group). Forty-nine patients were available five years post retention (16 in V-CTC group; 17 in V-S group; 16 in P group). No significant differences were found between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: After five years or more out of retention, the three retention methods had achieved equally favourable clinical results. Thus a maxillary VFR combined with a bonded canine-to-canine retainer in the mandible, a maxillary VFR combined with stripping of the mandibular anterior teeth and a prefabricated positioner can all be recommended.

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth.

BACKGROUND: Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment. Secondary objectiveTo explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns.For trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively'). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique).We considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs. Crowns versus fillingsAll studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies).Discomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence).It is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence). Crowns versus non-restorative caries treatmentOnly one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates. Metal crowns versus aesthetic crownsOne split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.

Radiotherapy associated with higher rates of dental implant loss.

DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via PubMed and EMBASE; no restrictions on language, published before February 1st 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reporting outcomes from irradiated and non-irradiated patients were eligible for inclusion as were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing irradiated patients submitted to different implant-based treatment protocols. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts was by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion, consensus, or failing this by consultation with a third reviewer. Data extraction was in duplicate and attempts were made to contact authors for missing data. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted versions of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (for RCTs and CCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Fifteen trials with 10,150 implants were included with 1,689 (14.3%) placed in irradiated mouths. There were 13 case series and two RCTs. three of the studies were on hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. Neither of the RCTs was rated as low risk of bias. Mean survival rates ranged from 46.3% to 98% with pooled estimates showing that implant failure was statistically significantly higher in irradiated patients compared to patients who had not undergone radiotherapy (an increase of 174%) with a risk ratio of 2.74 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.86, 4.05; p<0.00001). In maxillary sites, the risk ratio was 5.96 (95% CI:2.71, 13.12;p<0.00001) with the risk of loss increasing to 496%. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy did not reduce the risk of implant failure showing a risk ratio of 1.28 (95% CI:0.19, 8.82). CONCLUSIONS: Irradiation of the head was linked to increased failure rate of implants compared to failure rates in patients who had not undergone radiotherapy. The failure rate was higher in the maxilla and HBO therapy did not improve implant survival.

Triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes for oral health.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease and dental caries are highly prevalent oral diseases that can lead to pain and discomfort, oral hygiene and aesthetic problems, and eventually tooth loss, all of which can be costly to treat and are a burden to healthcare systems. Triclosan is an antibacterial agent with low toxicity, which, along with a copolymer for aiding retention, can be added to toothpastes to reduce plaque and gingivitis (inflammation of the gums). It is important that these additional ingredients do not interfere with the anticaries effect of the fluoride present in toothpastes, and that they are safe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of triclosan/copolymer containing fluoride toothpastes, compared with fluoride toothpastes, for the long-term control of caries, plaque and gingivitis in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 August 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 August 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 August 2013), and the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) (to 19 August 2013). We applied no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes on oral health. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria for this review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We attempted to contact study authors for missing information or clarification when feasible. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies (fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies), reporting mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 studies, analysing 14,835 participants, in this review. We assessed 10 studies (33%) as at low risk of bias, nine (30%) as at high risk of bias and 11 (37%) as unclear. Plaque Compared with control, after six to seven months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced plaque by 0.47 on a 0 to 5 scale (MD -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.34, 20 studies, 2675 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 2.17, representing a 22% reduction in plaque. After six to seven months of use, it also reduced the proportion of sites scoring 3 to 5 on a 0 to 5 scale by 0.15 (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.10, 13 studies, 1850 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.37, representing a 41% reduction in plaque severity. Gingivitis After six to nine months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced inflammation by 0.27 on a 0 to 3 scale (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.21, 20 studies, 2743 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 1.22, representing a 22% reduction in inflammation. After six to seven months of use, it reduced the proportion of bleeding sites (i.e. scoring 2 or 3 on the 0 to 3 scale) by 0.13 (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.08, 15 studies, 1998 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.27, representing a 48% reduction in bleeding. Periodontitis After 36 months of use, there was no evidence of a difference between triclosan/copolymer toothpaste and control in the development of periodontitis (attachment loss) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27, one study, 480 participants, low-quality evidence). Caries After 24 to 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste slightly reduced coronal caries when using the decayed and filled surfaces (DFS) index (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.02, four studies, 9692 participants, high-quality evidence). The control group mean was 3.44, representing a 5% reduction in coronal caries. After 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste probably reduced root caries (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.23, one study, 1357 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Calculus After six months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste may have reduced the mean total calculus per participant by 2.12 mm (MD -2.12 mm, 95% CI -3.39 to -0.84, two studies, 415 participants, low-quality evidence). The control group mean was 14.61 mm, representing a 15% reduction in calculus. Adverse effects There were no data available for meta-analysis regarding adverse effects, but 22 studies (73%) reported that there were no adverse effects caused by either the experimental or control toothpaste.There was considerable heterogeneity present in the meta-analyses for plaque, gingivitis and calculus. Plaque and gingivitis showed such consistent results that it did not affect our conclusions, but the reader may wish to interpret the results with more caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate-quality evidence showing that toothpastes containing triclosan/copolymer, in addition to fluoride, reduced plaque, gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding when compared with fluoride toothpastes without triclosan/copolymer. These reductions may or may not be clinically important, and are evident regardless of initial plaque and gingivitis levels, or whether a baseline oral prophylaxis had taken place or not. High-quality evidence showed that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes lead to a small reduction in coronal caries. There was weaker evidence to show that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes may have reduced root caries and calculus, but insufficient evidence to show whether or not they prevented periodontitis. There do not appear to be any serious safety concerns regarding the use of triclosan/copolymer toothpastes in studies up to three years in duration.

Operative caries management in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I(2) = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I(2) = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.