Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic dental injuries are common. One of the most severe injuries is when a permanent tooth is knocked completely out of the mouth (avulsed). In most circumstances the tooth should be replanted as quickly as possible. There is uncertainty on which interventions will maximise the survival and repair of the replanted tooth. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of a range of interventions for managing traumatised permanent front teeth with avulsion injuries. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 March 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 March 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 March 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 March 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing 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: We considered randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that included a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, for interventions for avulsed and replanted permanent front teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Authors were contacted where further information about their study was required. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies, involving a total of 183 participants and 257 teeth were identified. Each of the interventions aimed to reduce infection or alter the inflammatory response or both at the time of or shortly after the tooth or teeth were replanted. Each study assessed a different intervention and therefore it was not appropriate or possible to numerically synthesise the data. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One study at high risk of bias with 69 participants (138 teeth) compared a 20-minute soak with gentamycin sulphate for both groups prior to replantation with the experimental group receiving daily hyperbaric oxygen for 80 minutes for the first 10 days. There was some evidence of a benefit for the hyperbaric oxygen group in respect of periodontal healing, tooth survival, and pulpal healing.One study at unclear risk of bias with 22 participants (27 teeth) compared the use of two root canal medicaments, Ledermix and Ultracal. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for periodontal healing or tooth survival. This was the only study to formally report adverse events with none identified. Study authors reported that Ledermix caused a greater level of patient dissatisfaction with the colour of avulsed and replanted teeth.A third study at high risk of bias with 19 participants compared extra- or intra-oral endodontics for avulsed teeth which were stored dry for longer than 60 minutes before replantation. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in periodontal healing.The fourth study at high risk of bias with 73 participants compared a 10-minute soak in either thymosin alpha 1 or saline before replantation followed by daily gingival injections with these same medicaments for the first 7 days. There was some evidence of a benefit for thymosin alpha 1 with respect to periodontal healing and tooth survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the included studies, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of different interventions for avulsed and replanted permanent front teeth. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, and therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. There is urgent need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials.

Anaesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine in children's dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, numerous reviews and studies have awarded articaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic (LA) a superior reputation, with outcomes of different studies demonstrating a general tendency for articaine hydrochloride to outperform lidocaine hydrochloride for dental treatment. Nevertheless, there seems to be no clear agreement on which LA solution is more efficacious in dental treatment for children. There is no previous publication systematically reviewing and summarising the current best evidence with respect to the success rates of LA solutions in children. AIMS: To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of lidocaine and articaine, used in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (OVID; 1950 to June 2017), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost; 1982 to June 2017), EMBASE (OVID; 1980 to June 2017), SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge; 1900 to June 2017), key journals, and previous review bibliographies through June 2017. Original research studies that compared articaine with lidocaine for dental treatment in children were included. Methodological quality assessment and assessment of risk of bias were carried out for each of the included studies. RESULTS: Electronic searching identified 525 publications. Following the primary and secondary assessment process, six randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included in the final analysis. There was no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures (SMD = 0.06, P-value = 0.614), and no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients (RR = 1.10, P-value = 0.863). Yet, patients reported significantly less pain post-procedure following articaine injections (SMD = 0.37, P-value = 0.013). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the reporting of outcomes among studies, with the overall quality of majority of studies being at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence suggesting that both articaine as infiltration and lidocaine IAD nerve blocks presented the same efficacy when used for routine dental treatments, with no difference between patient self-reported pain between articaine and lidocaine during treatment procedures. Yet, significantly less pain post-procedure was reported following articaine injections. There was no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine injections following treatment in paediatric patients.

Anaesthetic efficacy of 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine for extraction and pulpotomy of mandibular primary molars: an equivalence parallel prospective randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To compare the anaesthetic efficacy for pain and behaviour during treatment with mandibular infiltration using 4% articaine (BI) with inferior dental nerve clock (IDNB) using 2% lidocaine for extraction or pulp therapy in mandibular primary molars. DESIGN: This was equivalence parallel prospective RCT. A total of 98 children aged 5-9 years old were randomly assigned into two groups: BI supplemented by buccal intrapapillary infiltration with 4% articaine; IDNB with 2% lidocaine supplemented with long buccal infiltration. Behaviour during the injection and treatment procedures was assessed using Wong-Baker Facial Rating Scale (W-BFRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale (FBRS). RESULTS: During the injection phase, the absolute differences in success rates between the two techniques were 0.06 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.23) for VAS and -0.08 (95% CI: -0.19 to 0.03) for the behaviour of the child (FBRS). FBRS results showed the equivalence of the two, whereas the VAS results showed nonequivalence with the 95% confidence intervals slightly exceeding the equivalence margin (±0.20). W-BFRS success rates were 63.3% for both. During the treatment, VAS results showed similar success rates, demonstrating equivalence between the two as did the results for FBRS. CONCLUSION: The results suggested equivalence in success rates for both anaesthetic techniques during treatment.

Outcomes of the conventional and biological treatment approaches for the management of caries in the primary dentition.

BACKGROUND: In the last few years, conventional restorations including complete removal of carious tissue (CT) with or without pulp therapy for the treatment of carious lesions (CL) in primary teeth have been challenged and a more biological approach has been suggested. This approach involves the use of less invasive techniques which alter the environment of the CL isolating it from the cariogenic biofilm and substrate. Two of these treatment approaches that are becoming increasingly widely accepted and used in paediatric dentistry are the Hall Technique and indirect pulp capping (IPC). AIM: To investigate the outcome of the conventional versus the biological approaches for the treatment of deep CL in the primary teeth in children, delivered in a specialist paediatric dentistry training environment. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of 246 children aged 4-9 years, treated with either approach, conventional and biological, in two UK specialist hospital settings. Data were extracted from clinical dental records and post-operative radiographs of patients treated during the period 2006-2012. The outcome of the treatment in this study was categorised into three main categories: clinical, radiographic, and final outcome. Clinical and final outcomes were further described as success, minor, and major failure. RESULTS: In total, 836 primary teeth were included. In the conventional approach, 324 teeth had complete CT removal and 104 teeth had a pulpotomy. In the biological approach, 388 teeth had Hall Technique preformed metal crowns (PMC) placed and 20 teeth received indirect pulp capping. PMC were the restoration of choice for most of the cases where a pulpotomy had been carried out, and resin composite was most frequently used restorative material for the complete CT removal group. The majority of the primary teeth treated with either approach remained asymptomatic after a follow-up period of up to 77 months, 95.3% in the conventional and 95.8% in the biological. No significant association was found between the final outcome and the approach used for treatment, age of the patient, gender and number of carious surfaces or tooth type. CONCLUSION: Both the conventional and biological treatment approaches had similar final outcomes and were equally successful for management of CL in the primary dentition.