Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Most of the detected increment in dental caries among children above the age of six years and adolescents is confined to occlusal surfaces of posterior permanent molars. Dental sealants and fluoride varnishes are much used to prevent caries. As the effectiveness of both interventions in controlling caries as compared with no intervention has been demonstrated previously, this review aimed to evaluate their relative effectiveness. It updates a review published originally in 2006 and updated in 2010 and in 2016. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of dental sealants (i.e. fissure sealant) compared with fluoride varnishes, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes compared with fluoride varnishes alone, for preventing dental caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate whether effectiveness is influenced by sealant material type and length of follow-up, document and report on data concerning adverse events associated with sealants and fluoride varnishes, and report the cost effectiveness of dental sealants versus fluoride varnish in caries prevention. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2020) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2020). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 months of follow-up comparing fissure sealants, or fissure sealants plus fluoride varnishes, versus fluoride varnishes, for preventing caries in the occlusal surfaces of permanent posterior teeth (i.e. premolar or molar teeth), in participants younger than 20 years of age at the start of the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We attempted to contact study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We grouped and analysed studies on the basis of sealant material type: resin-based sealant or glass ionomer-based sealant (glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer sealant), and different follow-up periods. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for risk of caries on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth. For trials with a split-mouth design, we used the Becker-Balagtas OR. One cluster-randomised trial provided precise estimates in terms of risk ratio (RR), which we used. For continuous outcomes and data, we used means and standard deviations to obtain mean differences (MD). For meta-analysis, we used the random-effects model when we combined data from four or more studies. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials with 3374 participants aged five to 10 years when trials started. Three trials are new since the 2016 update. Two trials did not contribute data to our analysis. Sealant versus fluoride varnish Resin-based fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes Seven trials evaluated this comparison (five contributing data). We are uncertain if resin-based sealants may be better than fluoride varnish, or vice versa, for preventing caries in first permanent molars at two to three years' follow-up (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19; I2 = 84%; 4 studies, 1683 children evaluated). One study measuring decayed, missing and filled permanent surfaces (DMFS) and decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) increment at two years suggested a small benefit for fissure sealant (DMFS MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; DMFT MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; 542 participants), though this may not be clinically significant. One small study, at high risk of bias, reported a benefit for sealant after four years in preventing caries (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84; 75 children) and at nine years (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 75 children). We assessed each of these results as having very low certainty. Glass ionomer-based sealants versus fluoride varnishes Three trials evaluated this comparison: one trial with chemically cured glass ionomer and two with resin-modified glass ionomer. Studies were clinically diverse, so we did not conduct a meta-analysis. In general, the studies found no benefit of one intervention over another at one, two and three years, although one study, which also included oral health education, suggested a benefit from sealants over varnish for children at high risk of caries. We assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Sealant plus fluoride varnish versus fluoride varnish alone One split-mouth trial analysing 92 children at two-year follow-up found in favour of resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish over fluoride varnish only (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.55), which represented a clinically meaningful effect of a 77% reduction in caries after two years; however, we assessed this evidence as very low certainty. Adverse events Five trials (1801 participants) (four using resin-based sealant material and one using resin-modified glass ionomer) reported that no adverse events resulted from use of sealants or fluoride varnishes over one to nine years. The other studies did not mention adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Applying fluoride varnish or resin-based fissure sealants to first permanent molars helps prevent occlusal caries, but it has not been possible in this review to reach reliable conclusions about which one is better to apply. The available studies do not suggest either intervention is superior, but we assessed this evidence as having very low certainty. We found very low-certainty evidence that placing resin-based sealant as well as applying fluoride varnish works better than applying fluoride varnish alone. Fourteen studies are currently ongoing and their findings may allow us to draw firmer conclusions about whether sealants and varnish work equally well or whether one is better than the other.

Surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.

Students' perspectives of early and gradual transitioning between simulation and clinical training in dentistry and their suggestions for future course improvements.

INTRODUCTION: Students' perspectives on their learning environment are essential for course development and to enhance the educational experience. In dentistry, there is limited understanding of how students perceive their early clinical training. This study presents students' views on their gradual progression from simulation to patient care and describes the approaches they followed to adapt during this transitioning phase. METHODS: A qualitative study design was employed, drawing on focus group discussions conducted with students from the Division of Dentistry at the University of Manchester. The discussions were transcribed verbatim. Data collection and coding process followed the principles of thematic analysis and the inductive approach. FINDINGS: The sample was comprised of 28 undergraduate students, across four focus groups. Thematic analysis generated three key categories: students' immediate perspectives of early clinical training, students' approaches to adapting to the transitioning period and students' suggestions for future improvement. Further, subthemes emerged describing the positive gains which students recognised from their early and gradual clinical involvement and training. Despite experiencing stress and uncertainty, related to insufficient knowledge and immature multitasking skills in the early years of dental training, students were motivated by the clinical environment and identified several ways to adapt to it and enhance their learning. These included additional self-learning resources and simulation opportunities; inter-year group learning activities and further peer support and mentoring. CONCLUSION: The current study provided insights into students' experiences of learning through early clinical involvement and gradual transitioning between simulation and clinical environments in dentistry. The findings revealed that whilst students appreciated being involved in the clinic at an early stage, they had to adopt a variety of approaches to link their knowledge, learning and skills between the simulation and clinical environments. Students' suggested additional activities to link the learning gap between the two environments and to enrich their learning.

Provision of information on dental implant treatment: Patients' thoughts and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' thoughts and perceptions of information provision regarding dental implant treatment. METHODS: This generic qualitative study involved 38 semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with 34 participants, who were at different stages of dental implant treatment. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The data collection and coding process followed the principles of qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinical sources of information were generally trusted by patients; however, patients clearly lacked information relative to their own specific situation, concerns and preferences, and this may lead to patients' reliance on other general sources of information. Crucial information on the long-term prosthesis needs was requested by patients at all treatment stages. Issues concerning the longevity and functional capability of the implant restoration and the long-term maintenance including optimisation of hygiene practice were questioned by patients and required greater explanation. CONCLUSION: With growing patient interest in implants for replacement of missing teeth, complete and accurate knowledge and understanding of implants should be established with patients. This should be undertaken with more reliance on reliable clinically based sources of implant information.

Patients' perceptions of implant placement surgery, the post-surgical healing and the transitional implant prostheses: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore patients' thoughts, feelings about, and experiences of, implant placement surgery (IPS), the post-surgical healing stage and the immediate post-surgical transitional implant prosthesis (TIP) (fixed and removable). METHODS: A qualitative study design was chosen and 38 semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 34 patients at different stages of implant treatment. The interviews were transcribed verbatim; the data collection and coding process followed the principles of thematic analysis, which was facilitated through the use of NVivo10. RESULTS: Patients anticipated that surgery would be painful and unpleasant but were prepared to accept this temporary discomfort for the expected benefits of implant treatment. However, a key finding was that patients felt they had overestimated the trauma of surgery but underestimated the discomfort and difficulties of the healing phase. A number of difficulties were also identified with the TIP phase following implant surgery. CONCLUSION: Existing research has tended to focus on the longer term benefits of dental implant treatment. This qualitative study has investigated in-depth patients' perceptions of dental implant surgery, including their experiences related to sedation, and of transitional implant restoration. While patients felt their concerns were overestimated in relation to the implant surgery, they experienced greater morbidity than they expected in the healing phase. Recommendations are made for relatively small changes in care provision which might improve the overall patient experience. Partial dentate patients treated with a fixed transitional prosthesis experienced advantages more quickly than patients with an overdenture.

Provision of information to patients on dental implant treatment: Clinicians' perspectives on the current approaches and future strategies.

OBJECTIVES: To explore 1) the approaches that are adopted by clinicians to give patients information in relation to dental implant treatment during clinical consultations; 2) clinicians' reflections on their current practices of implant information provision; and 3) clinicians' suggestions to improve future implant information provision. METHODS: A qualitative study employing face-to-face semi-structured interviews with eight clinicians working in UK secondary dental care. The data gathering and analysis followed the principles of qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians reported that patients often hold misconceptions about dental implants, which are commonly acquired from generic information sources such as the media. This might be linked to high expectations regarding treatment outcomes and difficulties in communicating during clinical consultations. Clinicians were sometimes reluctant to voluntarily offer information about the longevity/ lifespan of implant supported restoration (ISR) and they had different opinions regarding the timing of information related to their long-term maintenance needs. Several strategies for improving the current practice of information giving in relation to dental implant treatment were suggested by clinicians. CONCLUSION: Providing accurate and timely information to patients could be challenging, although clinicians recognised the importance of doing so. As clinicians explained and debated their current approaches and reflected on their practices, they identified areas of potential improvement and ways to improve information provision related to dental implants. These were mainly focused on transforming patient care so that there is efficient co-operative alliance between patients and dental care providers. Considering upgrading information provision throughout the implant treatment pathway would transform this aspect of healthcare to make it more "patient-centred" than it is currently.