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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Safety of oral midazolam sedation use in paediatric dentistry: a review.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available as to the safety of midazolam when used as an oral sedative. AIM: To evaluate the side effects and other adverse outcomes following use of oral midazolam for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. DESIGN: A review of published literature relating to the safety and side effects of oral midazolam for use in paediatric dental procedures was conducted. Both randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies were assessed. Reported side effects were recorded and classified as either significant or minor. The percentage prevalence of significant or minor side effects per episode of treatment was calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen papers of randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. None of the side effects recorded were considered as significant. Minor side effects were reported (n = 68, 14%), with nausea and vomiting being the most frequently recorded (n = 30, 6%). Eleven papers of non-randomised studies were included. No significant side effects were recorded. Minor side effects were recorded (n = 157, 8%), with paradoxical reaction being the most common at 3.8%. CONCLUSION: Significant side effects associated with oral midazolam usage for behaviour management in children and adolescents requiring dental treatment appear to be rare. Minor side effects are more common but determining precise figures is complicated by poor reporting.

Behaviour support in dentistry: A Delphi study to agree terminology in behaviour management.

OBJECTIVES: Dental behaviour support (DBS) describes all specific techniques practiced to support patients in their experience of professional oral healthcare. DBS is roughly synonymous with behaviour management, which is an outdated concept. There is no agreed terminology to specify the techniques used to support patients who receive dental care. This lack of specificity may lead to imprecision in describing, understanding, teaching, evaluating and implementing behaviour support techniques in dentistry. Therefore, this e-Delphi study aimed to develop a list of agreed labels and descriptions of DBS techniques used in dentistry and sort them according to underlying principles of behaviour. METHODS: Following a registered protocol, a modified e-Delphi study was applied over two rounds with a final consensus meeting. The threshold of consensus was set a priori at 75%. Agreed techniques were then categorized by four coders, according to behavioural learning theory, to sort techniques according to their mechanism of action. RESULTS: The panel (n = 35) agreed on 42 DBS techniques from a total of 63 candidate labels and descriptions. Complete agreement was achieved regarding all labels and descriptions, while agreement was not achieved regarding distinctiveness for 17 techniques. In exploring underlying principles of learning, it became clear that multiple and differing principles may apply depending on the specific context and procedure in which the technique may be applied. DISCUSSION: Experts agreed on what each DBS technique is, what label to use, and their description, but were less likely to agree on what distinguishes one technique from another. All techniques were describable but not comprehensively categorizable according to principles of learning. While objective consistency was not attained, greater clarity and consistency now exists. The resulting list of agreed terminology marks a significant foundation for future efforts towards understanding DBS techniques in research, education and clinical care.

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. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and relative efficacy of conscious sedation agents and dosages for behaviour management in paediatric dentistry. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Dissertation Abstracts, SIGLE, the World Wide Web (Google) and the Community of Science Database were conducted for relevant trials and references up to 4th August 2011. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. There were no language restrictions. Trials pre-1966 were not searched. 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. Crossover trials were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Where information in trial reports was unclear or incomplete authors of trials were contacted. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included with a total of 2810 participants. Thirty trials (83%) were at high risk of bias and six (17%) were at unclear risk of bias. There were 28 different sedatives used with or without inhalational nitrous oxide. Dosages, mode of administration and time of administration varied widely. Trials were grouped into placebo-controlled, dosage and head-to-head comparisons. Meta-analysis of the available data was possible for studies investigating oral midazolam vs placebo only. There is weak evidence from five small clinically heterogeneous trials at high risk of bias, that the use of oral midazolam in doses between 0.25 mg/kg to 0.75 mg/kg is associated with more co-operative behaviour compared to placebo; standardised mean difference (SMD) favoured midazolam (SMD 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 4.37, P < 0.001, I² = 91%), which translates to an increase of approximately 1.8 points on the six-point Houpt behaviour scale. There is very weak evidence from two trials which could not be pooled that inhalational nitrous oxide is more effective than placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some weak evidence that oral midazolam is an effective sedative agent for children undergoing dental treatment. There is very weak evidence that nitrous oxide inhalation may also be effective. 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.

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment in under 18 year olds.

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 in children by the use of a general anaesthetic, however use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review is to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for children and adolescents aged under 18 years.This review was originally published in 2009 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the intra- and postoperative morbidity, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for under 18 year olds. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to July 2012); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to July 2012); System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October 2008), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2012), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2008). The searches were updated to July 2012. The original search was performed in October 2008.We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2012. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials of sedative agents compared to general anaesthesia in children and adolescents aged up to 18 years having dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to the objectives and outcome measures in a specially designed 'data extraction form'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies for potential inclusion after searching the available databases and screening the titles and abstracts. We identified a further study through personal contacts. Following full text retrieval of the studies, we found none to be eligible for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies are required comparing the use of dental general anaesthesia with sedation to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.

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

BACKGROUND: Fear of dental pain is a major barrier to children needing dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort. In addition it might also reduce intraoperative pain. Reviewing the available evidence will determine whether further research is warranted and will inform the development of prescribing guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 8 March 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 March 2012), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 8 March 2012) and the ISI Web of Knowledge (1945 to 8 March 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.The reference lists of all eligible trials were checked for additional studies. Specialists in the field were contacted 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 aged up to 17 years. 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 for eligibility and undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials met the review's inclusion criteria with 190 participants in total. Three trials were dentally related i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. None of the included trials were judged to be at low risk of bias. Three trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). The meta-analysis of the two trials showed a nonsignificant risk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain-related behaviours of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in placebo versus 42% in test group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, the other at high risk. Four 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. Data from two trials, including patients who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, were pooled to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant benefit, with regard to severity of postoperative pain, for giving ibuprofen preoperatively with mean difference -19.12 (95% CI -29.36 to -8.87; P = 0.0003; moderate quality evidence) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100) indicating a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both these trials were at high risk of bias. Adverse events were only reported in one trial (one patient 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 prescribing preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement.

Management of 'double teeth' in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Abnormally, large teeth are often referred to as 'double teeth'. These can pose numerous challenges for the clinician. There is no published protocol on the management of double teeth. AIM: To review the published literature and also patients managed at the Eastman Dental Hospital (EDH) and to develop a clinical protocol for the management of double teeth in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Literature was searched (Medline and Embase) and data collated. Patient notes of cases managed at the EDH were reviewed. RESULTS: Eighty-one teeth from 53 papers and 22 patients were included in the review. Success criteria were only reported in 32 papers and were variable. Twenty-three papers had no follow-up period. The main factor in determining the management of a double tooth was root and root canal system morphology. The treatment of choice in teeth with separate roots was hemisection and in those with a single root was crown modification or extraction. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to determine the best management strategies because of the variable reporting in the literature. The authors have proposed a protocol for management and a data collection sheet for essential information needed when reporting on double teeth cases.

Scurvy presenting primarily as gingival manifestation in a young child: a diagnostic dilemma.

Vitamin C deficiency, historically known as scurvy, was associated with sailors in the Victorian times, however, a global review in 2020 suggests it still exists in certain at-risk groups.A case is presented of a young non-verbal child with learning difficulties and on a restricted diet, in which the primary symptom was gingival inflammation. It posed a diagnostic dilemma due to the non-specific symptoms, and a delay in the diagnosis, until vitamin C deficiency was confirmed.Gingival inflammation is one of the common findings in vitamin C deficiency and dental professionals may be the first point of contact. The importance of dietary evaluation, identifying and looking for other signs and liaising with the medical colleagues are discussed.This case highlights the role of the dentist in identifying latent cases of vitamin C deficiency and to consider this as a differential diagnosis especially in certain at-risk groups.

Renewal MI Dental Composite Etch and Seal Properties.

This study's aim was to assess whether the Renewal MI composite can self-etch enamel, seal sound cavities, and stabilize demineralized dentine. Etching was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Cavity sealing was quantified using the ISO-11405 dye microleakage test. Demineralized dentine stabilization was evaluated by visualizing resin tag formation, enzyme activity and mineral precipitation at the adhesion interface. Renewal MI provided a mild etching of sound enamel in comparison with 37% phosphoric acid. It provided a comparable seal of sound cavities to Z250/Scotchbond Universal adhesive and a superior seal to Activa, Fuji IX and Fuji II LC. With demineralized dentine, Renewal MI formed 300-400 µm resin tags covering 63% of the adhesion interface compared with 55 and 39% for Z250/Scotchbond and Activa. Fuji IX and Fuji II LC formed no resin tags. A higher tag percentage correlated with lower surface enzyme activity. Unlike Activa and Fuji II LC, Renewal MI promoted mineral precipitation from simulated body fluid, occluding adjacent dentinal tubules within 6 months. These novel etching and sealing properties may facilitate Renewal MI's application in minimally invasive dentistry.

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 STRATEGY: 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.

Techniques for effective local anaesthetic administration for the paediatric patient.

Local anaesthesia forms the backbone of pain control techniques in dentistry and has a major role in dentistry for children and adults alike. Dental anxiety is still prevalent among children, causing delays in seeking dental care and leading to increased rates in childhood caries, resulting in increased hospital admissions for dental care under general anaesthesia. There is a constant search for more comfortable means of achieving local anaesthesia to provide a more positive experience for paediatric patients when seeking dental treatment. This article aims to provide an overview of local anaesthetic techniques used in paediatric dentistry, as well as methods utilised to make local anaesthetic administration more comfortable and how to increase acceptability.

Early Polylysine Release from Dental Composites and Its Effects on Planktonic Streptococcus mutans Growth.

The study aim was to assess the effect of incorporating polylysine (PLS) filler at different mass fractions (0.5, 1 and 2 wt%) on PLS release and Streptococcus mutans planktonic growth. Composite containing PLS mass and volume change and PLS release upon water immersion were assessed gravimetrically and via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), respectively. Disc effects on bacterial counts in broth initially containing 8 × 105 versus 8 × 106 CFU/mL Streptococcus mutans UA159 were determined after 24 h. Survival of sedimented bacteria after 72 h was determined following LIVE/DEAD staining of composite surfaces using confocal microscopy. Water sorption-induced mass change at two months increased from 0.7 to 1.7% with increasing PLS concentration. Average volume increases were 2.3% at two months whilst polylysine release levelled at 4% at 3 weeks irrespective of composite PLS level. Early percentage PLS release, however, was faster with higher composite content. With 0.5, 1 and 2% polylysine initially in the composite filler phase, 24-h PLS release into 1 mL of water yielded 8, 25 and 93 ppm respectively. With initial bacterial counts of 8 × 105 CFU/mL, this PLS release reduced 24-h bacterial counts from 109 down to 108, 107 and 102 CFU/mL respectively. With a high initial inoculum, 24-h bacterial counts were 109 with 0, 0.5 or 1% PLS and 107 with 2% PLS. As the PLS composite content was raised, the ratio of dead to live sedimented bacteria increased. The antibacterial action of the experimental composites could reduce residual bacteria remaining following minimally invasive tooth restorations.

Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment in under 18 year olds.

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 in children by use of a general anaesthetic; however use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review is to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the intra- and post-operative morbidity, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for under 18 year olds. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library; Issue 4, 2008); MEDLINE (OVID) (1950 to October Week 2, 2008); EMBASE (OVID) (1974 to Week 42, 2008); System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October 2008), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to October 2008), ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2008).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled clinical trials of sedative agents compared to general anaesthesia in children and adolescents aged up to 18 years having dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to the objectives and outcome measures into a specially designed 'data extraction form'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies for potential inclusion after searching the available databases and screening the titles and abstracts. We identified a further study through personal contacts. Following full text retrieval of the studies, we found none to be eligible AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing the use of dental general anaesthesia with sedation to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost are required.

Is access to paediatric dental general anaesthesia by need or by postcode?

Children's oral health, and the number of children attending for dental treatment under general anaesthesia continue to be in the spotlight of the dental press. But are all children across the UK given the same opportunities to access comprehensive dental care under general anaesthesia? This article gives details of a recent evaluation of dental general anaesthetic services currently provided in the UK. It outlines the current picture of services, discusses the challenges and the implications of the results, and makes suggestions to help improve the regional inequalities shown by the evaluation.