The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 397 631 elective dental admissions among the under-25s in England: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused widespread disruptions to health services worldwide, including reductions in elective surgery. Tooth extractions are among the most common reasons for elective surgery among children and young people (CYP). It is unclear how COVID-19 affected elective dental surgeries in hospitals over multiple pandemic waves at a national level. METHODS: Elective dental tooth extraction admissions were selected using Hospital Episode Statistics. Admission trends for the first 14 pandemic months were compared with the previous five years and results were stratified by age (under-11s, 11-16s, 17-24s). RESULTS: The most socioeconomically deprived CYP comprised the largest proportion of elective dental tooth extraction admissions. In April 2020, admissions dropped by >95%. In absolute terms, the biggest reduction was in April (11-16s: -1339 admissions, 95% CI -1411 to -1267; 17-24s: -1600, -1678 to -1521) and May 2020 (under-11s: -2857, -2962 to -2752). Admissions differed by socioeconomic deprivation for the under-11s (P < 0.0001), driven by fewer admissions than expected by the most deprived and more by the most affluent during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Elective tooth extractions dropped most in April 2020, remaining below pre-pandemic levels throughout the study. Despite being the most likely to be admitted, the most deprived under-11s had the largest reductions in admissions relative to other groups.

An environmental impact study of inter-dental cleaning aids.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the environmental footprint of eight inter-dental cleaning aids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative life cycle analysis was conducted based on an individual person using inter-dental cleaning aids every day for 5 years. The primary outcome was a life cycle impact assessment. This comprised of 16 discrete measures of environmental sustainability (known as impact categories), for example, greenhouse gas emissions (measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, or kg CO2 e), ozone layer depletion (measured in kilograms of chloroflurocarbon equivalent, or kg CFCe), and water use (measured in cubic metres). Secondary outcomes included normalized data, disability-adjusted life years, and contribution analysis. RESULTS: Inter-dental cleaning using floss picks had the largest environmental footprint in 13 of 16 impact categories. Depending on the environmental impact category measured, the smallest environmental footprint came from daily inter-dental cleaning with either bamboo inter-dental brushes (five impact categories, including carbon footprint), replaceable head inter-dental brushes (four impact categories), regular floss (three impact categories), sponge floss (three impact categories), and bamboo floss (one impact category). CONCLUSIONS: Daily cleaning with inter-dental cleaning aids has an environmental footprint that varies depending on the product used. Clinicians should consider environmental impact alongside clinical need and cost when recommending inter-dental cleaning aids to patients.

The effect of extraction of the lower first permanent molar on the developing third molar in children.

OBJECTIVE: To find the effect of extraction of the lower first permanent molar in children (aged 8-11 years) on the position and angle of the developing third molar. DESIGN: Retrospective radiographic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Two cohorts of participants were identified: an extraction group, who had extraction of one or more first permanent molars aged 8-11 years; and a non-extraction group, who retained all mandibular teeth. Both cohorts previously had panoramic radiographs taken at mean ages of 9.7 years (T1), before extraction, and 12.12 years (T2). In total, there were 61 third molars with an associated extracted first permanent molar and 60 third molars with an associated retained first permanent molar. METHODS: A digital radiographic analysis was carried out on the panoramic radiographs to measure the movement of the third molar, vertically and horizontally, and its angle. The magnification of the T1 and T2 radiographs was calibrated. Reliability of the radiographic analysis was confirmed via intra- and inter-rater reliability tests. The extraction and non-extraction groups were compared via independent sample tests. RESULTS: The third molar moved significantly more mesial in the extraction group (P < 0.001) and the angle uprighted significantly more than the non-extraction group (P < 0.001). Vertically, the third molar moved inferiorly in both cohorts with no significant difference. CONCLUSION: In the developing dentition, extraction of the lower first permanent molar encouraged mesial movement and uprighting of the developing third molar. This may improve the likelihood of future eruption of the third molar.

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

BACKGROUND: Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies. METHODS: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: 700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low. CONCLUSION: Few studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary.

Non-nutritive sucking habits in a child: A clinical protocol to their prevention and management.

Patients presenting with anterior open bites can be challenging to manage. This paper discusses the clinical features and aetiology of anterior open bites caused by non-nutritive sucking habits in a young child. It explores how these should be recognised and how certain interventions can be effective in their management. Whilst further high quality research is needed into the different methods and their effectiveness, the aim of the article is to provide a practical guide for general dental practitioners, orthodontists and paediatric dentists, who are involved in monitoring the developing dentitions of these patients.

Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of pain-free dentistry is crucial for reducing fear and anxiety, completion of treatment, and increasing acceptance of future dental treatment in children. Local anaesthetic (LA) facilitates this pain-free approach but it remains challenging. A number of interventions to help children cope with delivery of LA have been described, with no consensus on the best method to increase its acceptance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of methods for acceptance of LA in children and adolescents during dental treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019 Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 24 May 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 of May 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2019); and Web of Science (1900 to 24 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to 24 May 2019. There were no restrictions on language or date of publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used to increase acceptance of dental LA in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors for missing information. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 trials with 2435 randomised participants aged between 2 and 16 years. Studies were carried out between 2002 and 2019 in dental clinics in the UK, USA, the Netherlands, Iran, India, France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Mexico, and Korea. Studies included equipment interventions (using several LA delivery devices for injection or audiovisual aids used immediately prior to or during LA delivery or both) and dentist interventions (psychological behaviour interventions delivered in advance of LA (video modelling), or immediately prior to or during delivery of LA or both (hypnosis, counter-stimulation). We judged one study to be at low risk and the rest at high risk of bias. Clinical heterogeneity of the included studies rendered it impossible to pool data into meta-analyses. None of the studies reported on our primary outcome of acceptance of LA. No studies reported on the following secondary outcomes: completion of dental treatment, successful LA/painless treatment, patient satisfaction, parent satisfaction, and adverse events. Audiovisual distraction compared to conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA with a reduction in negative behaviour when 3D video glasses where used in the audiovisual distraction group (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.50; 1 trial, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The wand versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain regarding the effect of the wand on pain-related behaviour during delivery of LA. Four studies reported a benefit in using the wand while the remaining studies results suggested no difference between the two methods of delivering LA (six trials, 704 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Counter-stimulation/distraction versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with children experiencing less pain when counter-stimulation was used (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 1 trial, 134 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Hypnosis versus conventional treatment: the evidence was uncertain for the outcome pain experience during delivery of LA with participants in the hypnosis group experiencing less pain (mean difference (MD) -1.79, 95% CI -3.01 to -0.57; 1 trial, 29 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons considered included pre-cooling of the injection site, the wand versus Sleeper One, the use of a camouflage syringe, use of an electrical counter-stimulation device, and video modelling acclimatisation, and had a single study each. The findings from these other comparisons were insufficient to draw any affirmative conclusions about their effectiveness, and were considered to be very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions as to the best interventions to increase acceptance of LA in children due to variation in methodology and nature/timing of outcome measures. We recommend further parallel RCTs, reported in line with the CONSORT Statement. Care should be taken when choosing outcome measures.

Sedation of children undergoing dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Children's fear about dental treatment may lead to behaviour management problems for the dentist, which can be a barrier to the successful dental treatment of children. Sedation can be used to relieve anxiety and manage behaviour in children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need to determine from published research which agents, dosages and regimens are effective. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 February 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 22 February 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 February 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 February 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (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: Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials of conscious sedation comparing two or more drugs/techniques/placebo undertaken by the dentist or one of the dental team in children up to 16 years of age. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted, in duplicate, information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Cochrane statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies with a total of 3704 participants. Forty studies (81%) were at high risk of bias, nine (18%) were at unclear risk of bias, with just one assessed as at low risk of bias. There were 34 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Studies were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data for the primary outcome (behaviour) was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam versus placebo only. There is moderate-certainty evidence from six small clinically heterogeneous studies at high or unclear risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardized mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.33, P < 0.0001, I2 = 90%; 6 studies; 202 participants). It was not possible to draw conclusions regarding the secondary outcomes due to inconsistent or inadequate reporting or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some moderate-certainty evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is a need for further well-designed and well-reported clinical trials to evaluate other potential sedation agents. Further recommendations for future research are described and it is suggested that future trials evaluate experimental regimens in comparison with oral midazolam or inhaled nitrous oxide.

Dentists' use of validated child dental anxiety measures in clinical practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing anxiety is an important part of the assessment of a child presenting for dental treatment; however, the use of dental anxiety scales in practice is not well-documented. AIMS: To introduce child dental anxiety scales, and to monitor the extent to which dentists used them; to explore the experience and views of dentists regarding anxiety assessment. DESIGN: A mixed-methods design was employed. METHOD: A protocol for child anxiety assessment was introduced to paediatric dentists in Eastman Dental Hospital. After 6 months, 100 patient files were audited to examine compliance with the protocol. Fourteen dentists were interviewed to explore their experience and views regarding anxiety assessment. RESULTS: Only five patients were assessed using the scales. Thematic analysis of the dentist interviews revealed three themes: 'Clinical observations and experience: The gold standard'; 'Scales as an estimate or adjunct'; and 'Shortcomings and barriers to using scales'. CONCLUSIONS: The dentists in our study did not use anxiety scales, instead they rely on their own experience/judgement. Therefore, scales should be recommended as an adjunct to judgement. Brief scales are recommended as clinicians lack time and expertise in administering anxiety questionnaires. Advantages of using scales and hands-on experience could be incorporated more in undergraduate training.

WITHDRAWN: Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Managing children is a challenge that many dentists face. Many non-pharmacological techniques have been developed to manage anxiety and behavioural problems in children, such us: 'tell, show & do', positive reinforcement, modelling and hypnosis. The use of hypnosis is generally an overlooked area, hence the need for this review. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review attempted to answer the question: What is the effectiveness of hypnosis (with or without sedation) for behaviour management of children who are receiving dental care in order to allow successful completion of treatment?Null hypothesis: Hypnosis has no effect on the outcome of dental treatment of children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO. Electronic and manual searches were performed using controlled vocabulary and free text terms with no language restrictions. Date of last search: 11th June 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: All children and adolescents aged up to 16 years of age. Children having any dental treatment, such as: simple restorative treatment with or without local anaesthetic, simple extractions or management of dental trauma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors of trials were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the criteria described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2. MAIN RESULTS: Only three RCTs (with 69 participants) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were not possible due to insufficient number of studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there are a considerable number of anecdotal accounts indicating the benefits of using hypnosis in paediatric dentistry, on the basis of the three studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review there is not yet enough evidence to suggest its beneficial effects.

Radiographic prognostic factors determining spontaneous space closure after loss of the permanent first molar.

INTRODUCTION: Permanent first molars (PFM) with a poor prognosis are routinely extracted in children throughout the United Kingdom. National guidelines suggest that to achieve spontaneous closure for the mandibular arch, the PFM should be extracted at 8 to 10 years of age, during bifurcation formation of the second molar. The literature is of limited quality and has suggested alternative variables that may be associated with successful space closure. Our aim was to investigate the radiographic prognostic factors associated with space closure after extraction of PFM. Two objectives of the research are reported in this article: to determine factors that might predict space closure of the second molar after extraction of the PFM, and to develop a tool kit to aid clinical decision making. METHODS: We assessed 148 maxillary and 153 mandibular PFM extracted from 81 participants retrospectively. Dental age, second molar developmental stage, second premolar and second molar angulations, and presence or absence of the third molar were assessed on the preextraction orthopantomograms. Outcome was assessed via visual examination, study models, or radiographs. RESULTS: Closure occurred in 89.9% of the maxillary and 49.0% of the mandibular quadrants. Dental age was statistically, but not clinically, significant in the maxillary arch (P <0.05). For the mandibular arch, presence or absence of the third molar and second molar angulation were statistically and clinically significant (P <0.01 and P <0.05, respectively). A tool kit was developed in relation to the mandibular arch variables. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are contradictory to the Royal College of Surgeons guidelines and suggest that the presence of the third molar and a mesially angulated second molar are favorable for space closure. The developed tool kit requires further validity testing.

Preoperative analgesics for additional pain relief in children and adolescents having dental treatment.

BACKGROUND: Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.We checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.Three trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.Three of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.Four of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.

Poor oral health including active caries in 187 UK professional male football players: clinical dental examination performed by dentists.

BACKGROUND: The few studies that have assessed oral health in professional/elite football suggest poor oral health with minimal data on impact on performance. The aim of this research was to determine oral health in a representative sample of professional footballers in the UK and investigate possible determinants of oral health and self-reported impact on well-being, training and performance. METHODS: Clinical oral health examination of senior squad players using standard methods and outcomes carried out at club training facilities. Questionnaire data were also collected. 8 teams were included, 5 Premier League, 2 Championship and 1 League One. RESULTS: 6 dentists examined 187 players who represented >90% of each senior squad. Oral health was poor: 37% players had active dental caries, 53% dental erosion and 5% moderate-severe irreversible periodontal disease. 45% were bothered by their oral health, 20% reported an impact on their quality of life and 7% on training or performance. Despite attendance for dental check-ups, oral health deteriorated with age. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large, representative sample study in professional football. Oral health of professional footballers is poor, and this impacts on well-being and performance. Successful strategies to promote oral health within professional football are urgently needed, and research should investigate models based on best evidence for behaviour change and implementation science. Furthermore, this study provides strong evidence to support oral health screening within professional football.

Failure of eruption of permanent molars: a diagnostic dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Limited studies have proposed protocols for the management of failure of eruption (FOE) of permanent molars with no clear consensus or guidelines. Accurate diagnosis is challenging but key for successful management. AIMS: Confirm key diagnostic criteria that will aid diagnostic differentiation between primary failure of eruption (PFE) and mechanical failure of eruption (MFE) of permanent molars and identify successful management strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. Patients diagnosed with FOE of permanent molars (excluding impaction) between January 2003 and December 2013 were identified. Patient details and clinical and radiological features of FOE were recorded. Two examiners analysed the data. A diagnosis of PFE or MFE was made based on a combination of current protocols. Management strategies for each were identified and reported as satisfactory/unsatisfactory. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen were classified as PFE and 14 as MFE. One patient was too young to confirm diagnosis, and one patient had delayed eruption. A total of 26% of cases were misdiagnosed which led to unsuccessful orthodontic management. CONCLUSION: We propose a protocol based on the results of this study coupled with existing protocols in the form of a simple flow diagram to aid accurate diagnosis and management of this rare and challenging clinical problem.

Lower first permanent molars: developing better predictors of spontaneous space closure.

BACKGROUND: First, first permanent molars (FPMs) of poor prognosis are often planned for extraction at an 'ideal time' so that second permanent molars (SPMs) erupt favourably to replace them. However for lower FPM extractions, timing is not an accurate predictor of success. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify additional radiographic factors that could better predict the degree of spontaneous space closure of the lower SPM following FPM extraction. METHODS: Data from a previous study of 127 lower SPMs from 66 patients was re-analysed by incorporating additional radiographic factors. These included calcification stage of the bifurcation of the SPM, position of the second premolar, mesial angulation of SPM in relation to the FPM, and presence of the third permanent molar. Results were analysed using ordered logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 58 per cent of FPMs extracted at the 'ideal time' (SPM development at Demirjian stage E) had complete space closure. The best outcomes resulted from a combination of SPMs not at Demirjian development stage G, together with the presence of mesial angulation of the SPM and presence of the third permanent molar, where 85 per cent of those cases had complete space closure. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from extraction timing of the FPM, consideration must also be given to the presence of the third permanent molar and angulation of the SPM in order to ensure a reliable degree of spontaneous space closure of the lower SPM.

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015. OBJECTIVES: We will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.Morbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings. MAIN RESULTS: In our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.

Oral health and elite sport performance.

While the research base is limited, studies have consistently reported poor oral health in elite athletes since the first report from the 1968 Olympic Games. The finding is consistent both across selected samples attending dental clinics at major competitions and more representative sampling of teams and has led to calls from the International Olympic Committee for more accurate data on oral health. Poor oral health is an important issue directly as it can cause pain, negative effects on appearance and psychosocial effects on confidence and quality of life and may have long-term consequences for treatment burden. Self-reported evidence also suggests an impact on training and performance of athletes. There are many potential challenges to the oral health of athletes including nutritional, oral dehydration, exercise-induced immune suppression, lack of awareness, negative health behaviours and lack of prioritisation. However, in theory, oral diseases are preventable by simple interventions with good evidence of efficacy. The consensus statement aims to raise awareness of the issues of oral health in elite sport and recommends strategies for prevention and health promotion in addition to future research strategies.

Reported side effects of intravenous midazolam sedation when used in paediatric dentistry: a review.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) midazolam may be of value as an alternative paediatric dental sedation technique, but there is some apprehension concerning its routine use due to a lack of evidence regarding its safety and side effects. AIM: To review all available literature reporting the side effects of IV midazolam in children undergoing dental procedures. DESIGN: Both randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies were reviewed. Reported side effects were categorised as either significant or minor, and the percentage prevalence of significant or minor side effects per episode of treatment was calculated. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, in which no significant side events were reported; however, minor side effects were recorded (n = 33, 19.5%), with paradoxical reaction being the most common (n = 11, 6.5%). Six non-randomised studies were included, in which no significant side effects were reported; however, minor side effects were reported (n = 118, 16.8%) with paradoxical reaction being the most common (n = 89, 12.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant side effects were recorded, of the minor side effects reported paradoxical reaction was the most common. Due to inconsistency in side effect reporting, the authors suggest the application of a standardised adverse event reporting tool for future studies of sedation in paediatric dentistry.

Amelogenesis Imperfecta with Coronal Resorption: Report of Three Cases.

Intracoronal resorption of the permanent dentition in cases of amelogenesis imperfecta (AI) is a rare finding which poses an added complication to the already complex management of this condition. This paper presents three cases of AI associated with delayed eruption of permanent teeth in which asymptomatic intracoronal resorption occurred. CPD/Clinical Relevance: This paper highlights the fact that teeth affected with amelogenesis imperfecta may undergo asymptomatic intracoronal resorption which is only identifiable radiographically.

Intraoperative local anaesthesia for reduction of postoperative pain following general anaesthesia for dental treatment in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Whilst carrying out dental procedures under general anaesthesia (GA), practitioners routinely give local anaesthetics (LA) intraoperatively to children. Local anaesthetics are used to help manage postoperative pain and reduce bleeding and the physiological response to procedures. Studies of effectiveness of intraoperative LA to date have reported contradictory results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intraoperative local anaesthesia for reducing postoperative pain following general anaesthesia for dental treatment in children and young people aged 17 years or younger. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 02 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 02 January 2014) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 02 January 2014). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Register, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which local anaesthetic was given intraoperatively under general anaesthesia for dental treatment of children and young people aged 17 years or younger. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify omissions in trial reports. In the 'Summary of findings' tables, we elected to report the outcomes pain, distress, postoperative bleeding, and physiological parameters related to the general anaesthetic, as we considered these to be the outcomes of greatest importance to readers of the review. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials in this review, with 1152 randomised participants. The studies were published between 1990 and 2009 and were conducted in the United Kingdom, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The age of participants ranged from 2 to 40 years. Three studies were at an overall high risk of bias, seven studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged four studies to be at low risk of bias. The clinical heterogeneity of the included studies precluded pooling of studies in terms of method of administration of LA (e.g., intraligamental injection, infiltration injection, or topical delivery) and variation in the use of supplementary analgesics and follow-up time.Of the seven studies where administration of LA was by infiltration injection, six studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 542 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 4 studies had overall unclear risk of bias, 1 study had overall low risk of bias) measured postoperative pain. The results were equivocal. There was a decrease in bleeding and increase in soft tissue damage in the LA groups, but we did not judge this to be clinically significant.In the 2 studies where administration of LA was by intraligamental injection, there was no difference in mean pain scores, and they did not report any soft tissue damage (very low-quality body of evidence, 115 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 1 study had overall unclear risk of bias).One 3-armed study (very low-quality body of evidence, 54 participants analysed, overall high risk of bias) compared the effects of intraligamental and infiltration LA injection with no treatment. There was no evidence of a mean difference in pain, distress, or postoperative anxiety among the three groups.Four studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 343 participants analysed, 2 studies had overall low risk of bias, 2 studies had overall unclear risk of bias) evaluated the effects of topical LA compared with no treatment or placebo. One study (overall unclear risk of bias) with a no-treatment comparator reported lower mean pain in the LA group; all other studies reported no difference in mean pain scores. Two studies reported on bleeding (overall unclear risk of bias): One study reported a clinically insignificant increase in bleeding with no treatment; the other reported no difference.None of the studies reported on participant or child satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, it was difficult to reach firm conclusions as to the benefit of using local anaesthetic for dental treatment under general anaesthesia. The information reported in the included studies was comprehensive and applicable to the review question, but ultimately it was not sufficient to address the objective of the review. We were unable to pool the included studies in a meta-analysis because of substantial variation in outcome measures, interventions, and treatment types. The use of supplementary analgesia further obscured the effect of local anaesthetics.Based on the literature review and the results of this review, we recommend further randomised controlled trials that minimise bias through adequate allocation concealment and blinding of participants and assessors, and assess the effect of intraoperative local anaesthetic on the volume and type of anaesthetic used and on the cardiovascular system in participants receiving supplementary analgesics as well. Researchers should give consideration to the impact of any changes on the health and well-being of the participant and report baseline measures of pain or distress, or both, and preoperative anxiety.