Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review compared children's primary dentition caries experience for those with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and without. Four databases were searched without date restriction for; cross-sectional studies comparing caries experience for children with CL/P to those without. Screening, data extraction and risk assessment were carried out independently (in duplicate). Meta-analyses used a random-effects model. Twenty studies (21 reports) fitting the inclusion criteria comprised 4647 children in primary dentition from 12 countries. For dmft (n = 3016 children; 15 groups), CL/P mean = 3.2; standard deviation = 2.22 and no CL/P mean dmft = 2.5; sd 1.53. For dmfs (n = 1095 children; 6 groups), CL/P mean = 4; sd = 3.5 and no CL/P mean = 3; sd = 2.8. For % caries experience (n = 1094 children; 7 groups), CL/P mean = 65%; sd = 20.8 and no CL/P mean = 52%; sd = 28.1. Meta-analysis showed higher caries experience in children with CL/P, standardised mean difference = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.77. Studies' risk of bias was high (n = 7), medium (n-10) and low (n = 3). Children with CL/P had higher caries experience compared to those without CLP.

General and paediatric dentists' knowledge, attitude and practises regarding the use of Silver Diammine Fluoride for the management of dental caries: a national survey in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Silver Diammine Fluoride (SDF) is a topical medication used to arrest cavitated carious lesions non-invasively. The primary aim was to investigate, and analyse the relationships between; knowledge, attitudes and practises (including barriers and facilitators) for SDF use in the management of dental caries by general dental practitioners (GDPs) and paediatric dentists (PDs) in the Netherlands. A secondary aim was to explore any differences in these, between these groups. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 600 Dutch GDPs (out of 9,502 respectively) and all 57 registered Dutch PDs were invited to participate in this cross-sectional survey, consisting of four sections: (1) participant characteristics, (2) knowledge (through responses to summative questions), (3) attitudes (through statement agreement using 5-point Likert scale), and (4) practises, use, barriers and facilitators (through multiple choice questions). RESULTS: The response rates were: GDPs 23% (n = 140) and PDs 47% (n = 27). Knowledge: out of 15 questions to test understanding of SDF, the mean number of correct answers were GDPs 6.7; standard deviation (SD) 2.6 and PDs 7.4, SD 2.2 with no significant difference. The mean overall attitude score showed positive attitudes towards SDF use for both groups. Compared to GDPs, PDs were more likely to use SDF (p < 0.001) and expected to increase their use (p = 0.037). The main barrier for users was parental acceptance (47%) and for non-users it was lack of knowledge (60%). The main facilitator for both users and non-users was gaining knowledge through courses and workshops, followed by written information leaflets about SDF for parents. CONCLUSION: Less than half of the knowledge questions about SDF were answered correctly. Despite low knowledge, attitude towards SDF use was positive. Practitioners believed that its use would be facilitated by professionals having more accessible information and training and by the availability of parent information leaflets. Furthermore, SDF is used more frequently by PDs than GDPs.

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): an expert consensus-based statement.

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 < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes. 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 < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): A development protocol.

Reporting guidelines can improve the quality of reports of research findings. Some specialities in health care however require guidance on areas that are not captured within the existing guidelines, and this is the case for Paediatric Dentistry where no such standards are available to guide the reporting of different types of study designs. The 'Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry' (RAPID) group aims to address this need by developing guidelines on reporting elements of research of particular relevance to Paediatric Dentistry. The development of RAPID guidelines will involve a five-phase process including a Delphi study, which is an explicit consensus development method designed and implemented in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. The guideline development process will be overseen by an Executive Group. Themes specific to areas in Paediatric Dentistry will be selected, and items to be included under each theme will be identified by members of the Executive Group reviewing at least five reports of experimental and analytical study types using existing reporting guidelines. For the Delphi study, the Executive Group will identify an international multidisciplinary RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) of approximately 60 participants including academics, Paediatric Dentists, parents, and other stakeholders. Each item will be evaluated by RDG on clarity using a dichotomous scale ('well phrased' or 'needs revision') and on suitability for inclusion in the Delphi study using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = 'definitely not include' to 9 = 'definitely include'). The items will then be included in an online Delphi study of up to four rounds, with participants invited from stakeholder groups across Paediatric Dentistry. Items scored 7 or above by at least 80% of respondents will be included in the checklist and further discussed in a face-to-face Delphi consensus meeting. Following this, the Executive Group will finalize the RAPID guidelines. The guidelines will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at scientific meetings and conferences. All the outputs from this project will be made freely available on the RAPID website: www.rapid-statement.org.

Dental professionals' experiences of managing children with carious lesions in their primary teeth - a qualitative study within the FiCTION randomised controlled trial.

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.

Children and parents' perspectives on the acceptability of three management strategies for dental caries in primary teeth within the 'Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated or Not' (FiCTION) randomised controlled trial - a qualitative study.

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.

Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review.

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.

Dental caries experience, care index and restorative index in children with learning disabilities and children without learning disabilities; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Children with learning disabilities (CLD) have worse health outcomes than children with no learning disabilities (CNLD). This systematic review compared caries experience and met dental care need for CLD to CNLD using Decayed, Missing, Filled Permanent Teeth (DMFT) and decayed, missing/extracted, filled primary teeth (dmft/deft), care index (CI), and restorative index (RI) values. METHODS: Without date or language restrictions four databases were searched for; cross-sectional studies comparing caries experience and CI/ RI in CLD matched to groups of CNLD. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were carried out (random effects model). RESULTS: There were 25 articles with 3976 children (1 to 18 years old), from 18 countries, fitting the inclusion criteria. Children with; Down syndrome were investigated in 11 studies, autism in 8 and mixed learning disabilities in 6. The overall mean DMFT for CLD was 2.31 (standard deviation±1.97; range 0.22 to 7.2) and for CNLD was 2.51 (±2.14; 0.37 to 4.76). Using standardised mean difference (SMD), meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between CLD and CNLD (n = 16 studies) for caries experience (SMD = -0.43; 95%CI = -0.91 to 0.05). This was similar for sub-groups of children with autism (SMD = -0.28; 95%CI = 1.31 to 0.75) and mixed disabilities (SMD = 0.26; 95%CI = -0.94 to 1.47). However, for children with Down syndrome, caries experience was lower for CLD than CNLD (SMD = -0.73; 95%CI = -1.28 to - 0.18). For primary teeth, mean dmft/deft was 2.24 for CLD and 2.48 for CNLD (n = 8 studies). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between CLD and CNLD for caries experience across all disability groups (SMD = 0.41; 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.96), or in sub-groups: Down syndrome (SMD = 0.55; 95%CI- = - 0.40 to 1.52), autism (SMD = 0.43; 95%CI = -0.53 to 2.39) and mixed disabilities (SMD = -0.10; 95%CI = -0.34 to 0.14). The studies' risk of bias were medium to high. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a difference in caries levels in primary or permanent dentitions for CLD and CNLD. This was similar for learning disability sub-groups, except for Down syndrome where dental caries levels in permanent teeth was lower. Data on met need for dental caries was inconclusive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was published in PROSPERO: CRD42017068964 (June 8th, 2017).

Resin Infiltration May Reduce Proximal Carious Lesion Progression in Permanent Teeth With Ongoing Uncertainty for Primary Teeth.

QUESTION: Is resin infiltration effective at arresting the progression of proximal caries lesions? ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: The effect of resin infiltration on proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Chatzimarkou S, Koletsi D, Kavvadia K. J Dent 2018; 77:8-17. SOURCE OF FUNDING: None. TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Environmental Risk Factors in the Etiology of Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: Nonsyndromic orofacial cleft (NSOFC) etiology is multifactorial and heterogeneous. This study aimed to identify environmental risk factors related to NSOFC in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A case-control study carried out in seven hospitals in two main cities (Jeddah and Maddina) over 2 years on parents of 112 infants with NSOFC (infants were also examined) and 138 infant controls, matched for age (<18 months), gender, and location, completed a questionnaire on 3-month pregestation and first trimester events. RESULTS: There was significantly increased NSOFC risk with twin pregnancies (P = .01, odds ratio [OR] = 9.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 78.4), maternal antibiotic use (P = .021, OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.11 to 6.62), antiemetic medication (P = .005, OR = 2.85, 95% CI: 1.3 to 6), severe morning sickness (P = .006, OR = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.34 to 9.65), illness (P = .009, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.17 to 4.08), common cold/flu (P = .003, OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.48 to 7.58), Jorak smoking (P = .004, OR = 14.07, 95% CI: 1.55 to 128.1), and passive smoking (P = .05, OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.05 to 4.01). Reduced NSOFC risk was found with calcium supplementation (P = .02, OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.88), incense use (P = .03, OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.98), and maternal drinking water, with Zamzam water (which contains a high concentration of minerals) showing a significant protective effect compared with tap water (P = .01, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.6) and bottled water (P = .02, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.57). CONCLUSION: Twin births, maternal antibiotic use, antiemetic medication, severe morning sickness, common cold/flu, Jorak smoking, and passive smoking were associated with infants born with NSOFC. Calcium supplementation, incense use, and Zamzam water reduced the risk of NSOFC, raising the possibility of community preventive programs.

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.

Interventions for the cessation of non-nutritive sucking habits in children.

BACKGROUND: Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.

Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT.

BACKGROUND: More conservative techniques for managing dental caries including 'partial' and 'no caries removal' have been increasingly of interest. AIM: To compare children's behaviour and pain perception, also technique acceptability (parents and dentists), when approximal dentinal lesions (ICDAS 3-5) in primary molars (3-8-year-olds) were managed with three treatment strategies; conventional restorations (CR), hall technique (HT), and non-restorative caries treatment (NRCT). DESIGN: Secondary care-based, three-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with 169 participants treated by 12 dentists. OUTCOME MEASURES: child's pain perception (Visual Analogue Scale of Faces); behaviour (Frankl scale); and parents' and dentists' treatment opinions (5-point Likert scales). RESULTS: Children showed more negative behaviour in the CR group (37%) compared to NRCT (21%) and HT (13%) (P = 0.047, CI = 0.41 to 0.52). Pain intensity was rated 'very low' or 'low' in 88% NRCT, 81% HT, and 72% CR (P = 0.11, CI = 0.10 to 0.12). NRCT and HT were 'very easy' or 'easy' to perform for >77% of dentists, compared to 50% in CR group (P < 0.000). There were no statistically significant differences in parents' rating of their child's level of comfort (P = 0.46, CI = 0.45 to 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Dentists reported more negative behaviour in CR group. For all techniques, children's pain perception and dentist/parent acceptability were similar.

Parental consanguinity and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts in children: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether individuals born to consanguineous parents had a higher frequency of nonsyndromic orofacial clefts compared with those with no parental consanguinity. DESIGN: A prespecified plan for a search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data extraction from studies reporting consanguinity in relation to nonsyndromic orofacial clefts (NSOFC) was carried out. Papers reporting observational studies with control populations were included, without language restrictions, and these reports were assessed for quality. Sensitivity analyses using subgroups, homogeneity evaluation, and assessment of publication bias were carried out, and meta-analyses of extracted data were performed. RESULTS: Sixteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. There were statistically significant relationships between consanguinity and NSOFC for all 16 studies combined (P = .0003), with odds ratio (OR) = 1.83 and 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.31, 2.54); 10 case-control studies (P = .006), with OR = 2.06 and 95% CI = (1.23, 3.46); six cross-sectional studies (P = .03), with OR = 1.34 and 95% CI = (1.02, 1.76); first cousins consanguineous marriages (P = .04), with OR = 1.40 and 95% CI = (1.01, 1.93); cleft palate alone (P = .01), with OR = 1.89 and 95% CI = (1.14, 3.13); and cleft lip with or without cleft palate cases (P = .002), with OR = 1.56 and 95% CI = (1.18, 2.07). CONCLUSION: Although there was a high level of study heterogeneity, the evidence is consistent in suggesting that consanguinity is a risk factor for NSOFC, with an overall OR of 1.83 (95% CI, 1.31 to 2.54), implying that there was almost twice the risk of a child with NSOFC being born if there was parental consanguinity.

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.

The FiCTION dental trial protocol - filling children's teeth: indicated or not?

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence for effective management of dental caries (decay) in children's primary (baby) teeth and an apparent failure of conventional dental restorations (fillings) to prevent dental pain and infection for UK children in Primary Care. UK dental schools' teaching has been based on British Society of Paediatric Dentistry guidance which recommends that caries in primary teeth should be removed and a restoration placed. However, the evidence base for this is limited in volume and quality, and comes from studies conducted in either secondary care or specialist practices. Restorations provided in specialist environments can be effective but the generalisability of this evidence to Primary Care has been questioned. The FiCTION trial addresses the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme's commissioning brief and research question "What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of restoration caries in primary teeth, compared to no treatment?" It compares conventional restorations with an intermediate treatment strategy based on the biological (sealing-in) management of caries and with no restorations. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a Primary Care-based multi-centre, three-arm, parallel group, patient-randomised controlled trial. Practitioners are recruiting 1461 children, (3-7 years) with at least one primary molar tooth where caries extends into dentine. Children are randomized and treated according to one of three treatment approaches; conventional caries management with best practice prevention, biological management of caries with best practice prevention or best practice prevention alone. Baseline measures and outcome data (at review/treatment during three year follow-up) are assessed through direct reporting, clinical examination including blinded radiograph assessment, and child/parent questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of either pain or infection related to dental caries. Secondary outcomes are; incidence of caries in primary and permanent teeth, patient quality of life, cost-effectiveness, acceptability of treatment strategies to patients and parents and their experiences, and dentists' preferences. DISCUSSION: FiCTION will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing caries in children's primary teeth in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners in treatment decision making for child patients to minimize pain and infection in primary teeth. The trial is currently recruiting patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol ID: NCTU: ISRCTN77044005.

Evidence of improved access to dental care with direct access arrangements.

DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCI, SSCI, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier, Google scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Primary or secondary reports and studies, published in English, after 1993, likely to include data relevant to direct access, report on empirical data relating to the operation of that system. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, titles and abstracts were assessed by two reviewers, and disagreements resolved by the third. Full texts of these eligible ones were then assessed by the team until consensus reached. Data extraction by one reviewer was checked by a second and disagreements resolved by discussion with the third. Study quality was assessed through reference to CASP or SIGN checklists. Descriptive analyses and synthesis of findings were given. RESULTS: From the 1,733 studies yielded from the search, over 100 research dental and other health-related papers were identified as relevant. Thirty-five studies were eligible for inclusion under dental health care direct access and 57 under non-dental health care direct access literature. The quality of the evidence was varied but on the whole assessed as moderately good quality.There was no evidence of increased risk to patient safety in any of the included seven studies. Four studies on appropriateness of DCP referrals reported a high proportion of over-referral, one study found under-referral and one good agreement regarding referral decisions.Six of the seven studies looking at DCPs' knowledge or support to patients for smoking cessation, diabetes, child abuse and domestic violence found deficiencies in DCPs' knowledge or support to patients, but these studies didn't have evidence to suggest how this compared to dentists.Increasing access to dental therapists and hygienists (whether indirect, general or without supervision of a dentist) according to ten studies, resulted in greater access to and use of dental services by underserved populations. Three studies suggested variable and, at most, modest cost savings to patients and service providers. High levels of patient satisfaction were found in all eight studies reporting this, and DCP job satisfaction was reported to be higher with direct access. CONCLUSIONS: Although over-referral of patients to dentists was suggested and a need for training on assessment and referral skills, there was no evidence of significant issues of patient safety from the clinical activities of DCPs. There was strong evidence of improved access to dental care with direct access arrangements, cost benefits to patients/service providers and high levels of patient satisfaction.

A group of general dental practitioners' views of preformed metal crowns after participation in the Hall technique clinical trial: a mixed-method evaluation.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to investigate and describe the views of a group of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on their use of preformed metal crowns (PMCs) with the conventional method and the Hall Technique. The practitioners involved had previously taken part in a clinical trial of the Hall Technique. METHODS: The dentists' views were explored using a semi-structured interview (transcribed and analysed using a framework approach) and their use of crowns investigated (for conventional and Hall Technique) using a short questionnaire. RESULTS: Fourteen out of 17 dentists who participated in the trial were interviewed and completed the questionnaire. Prior to the trial, only three of the GDPs had been using conventional PMCs at all and this was 'infrequently'. None had been using them routinely. The semi-structured questionnaires revealed three main themes reflecting positively on the GDPs' experiences with the Hall Technique: its ease of use, its high patient acceptability, and the dentists' perceived clinical effectiveness of the technique. Thirteen of the 14 GDPs stated that they would continue to use the Hall Technique routinely and only one thought that he would not use it. CONCLUSION: Among a small group of GDPs with little experience or training in the use of the Hall Technique, it was perceived to be easy to use routinely, acceptable to patients and effective.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes in children with learning disabilities treated using the Hall Technique: a cohort study.

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.