CONSORT statement adherence and risk of bias in randomized controlled trials on deep caries management: a meta-research.

BACKGROUND: Recently, trials have supported changes in deep caries management. However, reporting might lack details, affecting interpretation and implementation. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT statement and the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on deep caries management published in pediatric dental journals. METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs in six pediatric dental journals between 2010 and 2022, focusing on deep caries lesion management. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline and the risk of bias were assessed using a modified tool with 19 items; each scored from 0 to 2 (maximum of 38 points), and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool. We performed descriptive and regression analyses (α = 5%). RESULTS: We analyzed 127 RCTs. The mean (standard deviation) CONSORT adherence score was 21.1 (6.7). Notably, 96.1% of the studies received a score of 2 for the "intervention" item, whereas 83.5% scored 0 for the "estimated effect size". The risk of bias assessment revealed that 40.2% of the RCTs were at high risk, 59% were at low risk, and 0.8% were at low risk. RCTs with a high risk of bias had lower CONSORT scores (p<0.001) than those with low or some concerns. RCTs published in journals without the endorsement of the CONSORT statement had lower scores than those in journals with the endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Older RCTs (6-10 years old and more than 10 years old) showed significantly lower CONSORT statement compliance than trials published recently within 5 years. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the CONSORT was relatively low among the investigated RCTs. Moreover, lower adherence to the CONSORT was associated with a higher risk of bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework - DOI ( 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6SYZ ).

Management of deep caries lesions with or without pulp involvement in primary teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

There is a lack of evidence about the best approach for cavitated caries lesions with the possibility of pulpal involvement in primary teeth. Thus, the present authors aimed to verify the best treatment for deep caries lesions with or without pulp involvement in primary teeth. The search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed and Web of Science databases until May 2020. Studies that compared techniques to manage deep caries lesions with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB tool. Network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted considering the treatment clinical success as an outcome, according to the pulp health condition. From 491 potentially eligible studies, 9 were included. For deep caries lesions with pulp vitality, the Hall Technique presented the highest probability of success (78%). In the event of accidental pulp exposure, pulpectomy presented a 76% chance of providing the best clinical results. For pulp necrosis, no difference was observed between a pulpectomy and non-instrumented endodontic treatment (RR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.21-2.33) Thus, it was concluded that the Hall Technique may be a better option for deep caries lesions with pulp vitality. In cases of accidental pulp exposure of vital teeth during caries removal, a pulpectomy may be considered the best option. However, there are insufficient studies to build up evidence about the best treatment option when irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis is present.

Management of deep caries lesions with or without pulp involvement in primary teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract: There is a lack of evidence about the best approach for cavitated caries lesions with the possibility of pulpal involvement in primary teeth. Thus, the present authors aimed to verify the best treatment for deep caries lesions with or without pulp involvement in primary teeth. The search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed and Web of Science databases until May 2020. Studies that compared techniques to manage deep caries lesions with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB tool. Network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted considering the treatment clinical success as an outcome, according to the pulp health condition. From 491 potentially eligible studies, 9 were included. For deep caries lesions with pulp vitality, the Hall Technique presented the highest probability of success (78%). In the event of accidental pulp exposure, pulpectomy presented a 76% chance of providing the best clinical results. For pulp necrosis, no difference was observed between a pulpectomy and non-instrumented endodontic treatment (RR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.21-2.33) Thus, it was concluded that the Hall Technique may be a better option for deep caries lesions with pulp vitality. In cases of accidental pulp exposure of vital teeth during caries removal, a pulpectomy may be considered the best option. However, there are insufficient studies to build up evidence about the best treatment option when irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis is present.