Oral Health Policy and Research Capacity: Perspectives From Dental Schools in Africa.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The prioritisation of oral health in all health policies in the WHO African region is gaining momentum. Dental schools in this region are key stakeholders in informing the development and subsequent downstream implementation and monitoring of these policies. The objectives of our study are to determine how dental schools contribute to oral health policies (OHPs) in this region, to identify the barriers to and facilitators for engaging with other local stakeholders, and to understand their capacity to respond to population and public health needs. METHODS: We developed a needs assessment survey, including quantitative and qualitative questions. The survey was developed electronically in Qualtrics and distributed by email in February 2023 to the deans or other designees at dental schools in the WHO African region. Data were analysed in SAS version 9.4 and ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: The capacity for dental schools to respond to population and public health needs varied. Most schools have postgraduate programs to train the next generation of researchers. However, these programs have limitations that may hinder the students from achieving the necessary skills and training. A majority (75%) of respondents were aware of the existence of national OHPs and encountered a myriad of challenges when engaging with them, including a lack of coordination with other stakeholders, resources, and oral health professionals, and the low priority given to oral health. Their strengths as technical experts and researchers was a common facilitator for engaging with OHPs. CONCLUSION: Dental schools in the region face common challenges and facilitators in engaging in the OHP process. There were several school-specific research and training capacities that enabled them to respond to population and public health needs. Overall, shared challenges and facilitators can inform stakeholder dialogues at a national and subnational level and help develop tailored solutions for enhancing the oral health policy pipeline.

Systemic Corticosteroid Uses in Endodontics-Part 1: Managing Postoperative Pain.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to systematically search and review all available literature regarding systemic (oral or locally injected) corticosteroids in endodontics to assess their effect on postoperative pain. METHODS: A search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Science, and ProQuest. Randomized controlled trials enrolling participants undergoing endodontic treatment and assessing the presence of pain and pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively were included. We synthesize the effect measures using risk ratios (RRs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects inverse variance method. The level of significance was set at P < .05. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: A total of 2303 participants from 29 trials were included. Patients who received corticosteroids were significantly less likely to report pain at 6 hours (RR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.74-3.61; P < .00001), 12 hours (RR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.53-2.90; P < .00001), and 24 hours (RR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.38-2.28; P < .00001) postoperatively. Furthermore, they reported lower pain intensity at 6 hours (SMD = - 0.82; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.48; P < .00001), 12 hours (SMD = - 0.63; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.51; P < .00001), and 24 hours (SMD = - 0.68; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.46; P < .00001) postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence indicates that the use of systemic corticosteroids likely results in a moderate to large reduction in postoperative endodontic pain.

Systemic Corticosteroid Uses in Endodontics-Part 2: Enhancing the Success of Local Anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic inflammation in irreversible pulpitis leads to heightened sensitivity of nociceptive receptors, resulting in persistent hyperalgesia. This poses significant challenges in achieving effective anesthesia for patients with irreversible pulpitis. Various anesthetic techniques and pharmacological approaches have been employed to enhance the success of local anesthesia. Recently, the preemptive use of anti-inflammatory agents, specifically corticosteroids, has gained attention and shown promising results in randomized controlled trials. This systemic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of systemically administered corticosteroids on enhancing anesthetic success in patients undergoing endodontic treatment. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Dentistry & Oral Science, and ProQuest. Additionally, the references of primary studies and related systematic reviews were manually searched for additional relevant publications. The primary outcome assessed was the success of anesthesia, and the effect measure was risk ratio using the random-effects inverse variance method. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 917 participants were analyzed to determine the frequency of successful anesthesia. The corticosteroid group demonstrated a significantly higher number of patients achieving successful anesthesia (risk ratio = 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.06;P < .00001). However, heterogeneity within the pooled data analysis was observed (I2 = 57%, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence indicates that preemptive use of systemic corticosteroids enhances the success of local anesthesia, specifically inferior alveolar nerve block, in cases of irreversible pulpitis.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

How oral health care organizations formulate actionable statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a systematic survey.

Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem that impacts the quality of life of those affected. While widespread consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally, and describe the methods and processes used. Methods: We will conduct manual searches on the websites of guideline developers, Ministries of Health, and scientific societies. Additionally, we will systematically search electronic databases to identify published guidelines and collect the name of the responsible entity. We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines on any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in its development process. Subsequently, we will use a standardized form to extract data about the characteristics of the organization, the characteristics of their guideline or policy documents, and their formal recommendation development processes. These data will be extracted from various sources, such as the organization's official website, the methods section of each guideline, or methodological handbooks. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data. Discussion: This systematic survey will synthesize key characteristics and methodologies used by organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines. This study will provide the basis for future development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and targeted dissemination of findings with the identified organizations. Our systematic survey represents a necessary first step toward improving the field of oral health policies and guidelines.

Emergency and sequalae management of traumatic dental injuries: a systematic survey of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and consequences of traumatic dental injuries (TDI) make them a public health problem. Trustworthy TDI clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) assist clinicians in determining a diagnosis and guide them to the most appropriate therapy. The aim of this systematic survey was to identify and evaluate the quality of CPGs for the diagnosis, emergency management, and follow-up of TDIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Trip database, CPG websites, and dental societies to identify documents providing recommendations for the emergency and sequelae management of TDIs. Reviewers assessed the included guidelines independently and in duplicate, using the AGREE II instrument. ANOVA or Student's t-tests were used to determine the attributes of CPGs associated with the total score in AGREE II. RESULTS: Ten CPGs published between 2010 and 2020 were included, mostly from Europe (n = 6). The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (0.94; 95%CI 0.91-0.97). The mean scores (the higher the score, the better the domain assessment) per domain were as follows: Scope and purpose 78.0 ± 18.9%; stakeholder involvement 46.9 ± 29.6%; rigour of development 41.8 ± 26.7%; clarity of presentation 75.8 ± 17.6%; applicability 15.3 ± 18.8%; and editorial independence 41.7 ± 41.7%. The overall mean rate was 4 ± 1.3 out of a maximum score of 7. Two guidelines were recommended by the reviewers for use in practice and rated as high quality. CPGs developed by government organizations showed a significantly higher overall score. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs on TDI was suboptimal. CPG developers should synthesize the evidence and formulate recommendations using high-quality methodologies and standards in a structured, transparent, and explicit way.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.

A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: How to interpret the magnitude of clinical study results.

BACKGROUND: In the oral health literature, researchers sometimes report measures of association that are inappropriate for their study design. Clinicians using evidence to inform their practice should be able to interpret clinical study results on the basis of the types of measures of association, independent of what the researchers of a study reported. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors summarized which measures of association can be derived from experimental and observational studies and how to interpret them in the context of different study designs. They also suggested how inferences can be made on the basis of particular designs. RESULTS: Measures of association derived from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies differ from those of case-control and cross-sectional studies. These differences can be attributed to the temporality between exposures and outcomes inherent in the respective study designs. Different measures of association reported from the same study may lead to different clinical decisions. Furthermore, the same measure of association with the same effect estimate derived from different study designs may contribute to different clinical decisions. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Measures of association should be interpreted in the context of a particular study design. Study designs and specific measures of association should be considered when drawing conclusions from clinical studies. Clinicians using the literature to inform practice should be cognizant of measures of association reported for a particular study design and whether the authors have interpreted the measure of association correctly in the context of their chosen study design.

Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs together with the ADA Science and Research Institute's program for Clinical and Translational Research conducted a systematic review and developed recommendations for the treatment of moderate and advanced cavitated caries lesions in patients with vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched for systematic reviews comparing carious tissue removal (CTR) approaches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Trip Medical Database. The authors also conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing direct restorative materials in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved. The panel conditionally recommended for the use of conservative CTR approaches, especially for advanced lesions. Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence suggests that more conservative CTR approaches may decrease the risk of adverse effects. All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

The potential harm of not following clinical practice guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide recommendations for clinicians on the basis of best evidence. CPGs are often not followed because of numerous barriers, including lack of awareness, inability to understand recommendations, and problems with implementation. CASE DESCRIPTION: A case report is presented in which treatment of a patient's incipient caries lesions may not have followed a CPG available to practitioners, recommending conservative nonrestorative medical interventions. The resulting treatment led to pain and the need for endodontic therapy and full-coverage restoration. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This case represents possible mismanagement leading to undue pain and additional costs that could have been avoided by being aware of, and following, the recommendations from CPGs.

Analgesics for the management of acute dental pain in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.

An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item.

OBJECTIVES: Minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change or difference that patients perceive as important, aids interpretation of change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores. A credibility instrument that assesses the methodological rigor of an anchor-based MID includes one core item addressing the correlation between the PROM and the anchor. However, the majority of MID studies in the literature fail to report the correlation. To address this issue, we extended the anchor-based MID credibility instrument by adding an item addressing construct proximity as an alternative to the correlation item. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Informed by an MID methodological survey, we added an alternative item-a subjective assessment of similarity of the constructs (i.e., construct proximity) between PROM and anchor-to the correlation item and generated principles for the assessment. We sampled 101 MIDs and analyzed the assessments performed by each pair of raters. By calculating weighted Cohen's kappa, we assessed the reliability of the assessments. RESULTS: Construct proximity assessment is based on the anticipated association between the anchor and PROM constructs: the closer the anticipated association, the higher the rating. Our detailed principles address the most frequently used anchors: transition ratings, measures of satisfaction, other PROMs, and clinical measures. The assessments showed acceptable agreement (weighted kappa 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) between raters. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a reported correlation coefficient, construct proximity assessment provides a useful alternative in the credibility assessment of anchor-based MID estimates.

Policymakers' perceived barriers and facilitators in the use of research evidence in oral health policies and guidelines: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-informed oral health policies are crucial to improving patient and population outcomes, but policymakers and organisational leaders infrequently systematically incorporate research evidence. Although there is indirect evidence regarding challenges in other healthcare sectors, the use of evidence-informed oral health policies remains unstudied in oral health. This study aims to assess policymakers' perceived needs, barriers and facilitators in using research evidence to inform policies in oral health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative study situated within a phenomenological paradigm. We will conduct semistructured interviews with policymakers (5-10) affiliated with key organisations conducting guidance, policy statements, guidelines or any knowledge transfer deliverables in oral health. Organisations will be sampled purposively and with no geographical restrictions. All interviews will be recorded, and an audio transcript will be generated. Subsequently, a researcher will review and validate the transcripts. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis supported by ATLAS.ti software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not sought because the study protocol met the criteria for exemption from such review according to the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau and the Spanish legislation (Law 14/2007 of 3 July, on biomedical research). Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in this study. The findings of this study will be shared with participating organisations for feedback, disseminated in conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal adopting open science practices. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/W4KG7).

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth. TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Injectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain: 2 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.

Barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of oral health policies in the WHO Africa region: A scoping review protocol.

Background: Evidence-informed oral health policies (OHP) can be instrumental in ending the neglect of oral health globally. When appropriately developed and implemented, OHP can improve the efficiency of healthcare systems and the quality of health outcomes. However, more than half of the countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) African region do not have an oral health policy or even the existence of a policy in need of additional and more national-specific OHP as part of non-communicable diseases and universal health coverage agendas. The objective of this protocol's study is to determine the barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of OHP in the WHO Africa region. Methods: We will conduct a systematic search in Global Health, Embase, PubMed, PAIS, ABI/Inform, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Scopus, databases that index gray literature, and the WHO policy repositories. We will include qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research studies and OHP documents published since January 1, 2002, which address stakeholders' perceptions and experiences regarding barriers to and facilitators for the creation, dissemination, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of OHP in countries part of the WHO African region. We will produce descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions) for quantitative data and conduct descriptive content analysis for qualitative data. Discussion: To effectively establish evidence-based OHP in the WHO African region, it is crucial to recognize existing challenges and opportunities for progress. The findings of this review will be relevant for Chief Dental Officers at ministries of health, administrators of dental schools, or academic institutions in the WHO African region and will inform a stakeholder dialogue meeting in Kenya in November of 2023. Registration: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9KMWR.