A Primary Care Randomized Controlled Trial of Hall and Conventional Restorative Techniques.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate treatment outcomes of different restorative techniques undertaken by dental therapists for primary molar carious lesions in a sample of children in New Zealand primary care. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with children aged 3 to 8 y in New Zealand's Whanganui region. Children meeting inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to treatment with either the Hall technique (HT), in which a stainless-steel crown (SSC) is placed without any carious tissue removal or tooth preparation, or a non-Hall conventional restorative approach (NHT), including tooth preparation with selective carious tissue removal; this included SSC, amalgam, composite, or glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Restorative outcomes after 12 and 24 mo were categorized as success, minor failure, or major failure. RESULTS: Of the 295 eligible children, 149 and 146 were allocated to the HT and NHT groups, respectively, with a total of 570 carious primary molars treated by 13 dental therapists. The participant follow-up rates at 12 and 24 mo were 95% and 91%. SSCs were the most commonly used restoration in the NHT group (60%), followed by GIC (28%). SSCs were the most successful restorations regardless of whether they were placed with the HT or NHT, with success rates of 89% and 92% at 12 mo and 85% and 86% at 24 mo. In the NHT group, the treatment material was a predictor of minor failure at 12 and 24 mo, with significantly more failures with GICs. CONCLUSIONS: SSCs placed by dental therapists are a highly successful restoration for the primary dentition, regardless of whether they are placed with the HT or conventionally. The high failure rate of glass ionomer restorations means that they cannot be recommended for widespread use in New Zealand primary care (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000844640). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The findings of this study can be used by policy makers and clinicians when deciding on which materials and which approach to use to maximize success and to minimize retreatment rates when providing restorative treatment for carious primary molars in children's primary oral health care. Results also suggest that undertaking research in the primary care setting may enhance translation of new knowledge and techniques into clinicians' hands.

Caries-preventive efficacy of a supervised school toothbrushing programme in Northland, New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste reduces the incidence of dental caries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a supervised school toothbrushing programme to reduce dental caries experience in children. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study. All children had routine dental examinations at baseline using the ICDAS to record dental caries, along with bitewing radiographs. Half of the children were involved in a supervised toothbrushing programme. Examinations were repeated at the end of the school year. CLINICAL SETTING: Northland, New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 335 10-13-year-old New Zealand children with high caries experience. INTERVENTIONS: Half of the children participated in the supervised toothbrushing session each school day; the other half had no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caries increment, determined by comparing the baseline and follow-up status of each tooth surface. RESULTS: At baseline, there were 335 children, of whom 240 (71.6%) were followed up. The ICDAS net caries increment for those in the toothbrushing group was a mean of 11.7 surfaces improved; the control group had a mean of 8.6 surfaces which had deteriorated. Caries incidence for those in the toothbrushing group was 7.3%; that for the control group was 71.5%. Multivariate analysis showed that membership of the brushing group was the only statistically significant predictor of a lower net caries increment. CONCLUSION: A supervised school toothbrushing programme can reduce caries increment in a population experiencing high levels of dental disease.

Resin Infiltration of Caries in Primary Molars in a Community Setting: 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial Findings.

This study aimed to assess whether resin infiltration of primary molar proximal lesions is more effective than noninvasive measures in radiographically controlling carious lesion progression into the dentin. A split-mouth randomized controlled trial included 90 children, each with 2 proximal lesions confined to the inner half of the enamel or ≤0.5 mm into the dentin. For each child, lesions were randomly allocated to test (infiltration: DMG Icon preproduct and fluoride varnish) or control (fluoride varnish) status. The primary outcome measure was 24-mo radiographic lesion progression. Placement of a restoration during the study period was counted as lesion progression. Proportions of teeth with progressed lesions were compared using the McNemar test. Children also reported on the treatment's acceptability to them. Children (46% female) ranged in age from 6 to 9 y. Their mean number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (d3mft) was 2.8 (SD 2.6). At baseline, 58% and 42% of children were at moderate and low risk, respectively. Test and control lesions presented with similar radiographic lesions at baseline. At the 24-mo follow-up, 6 children had moved and 30 teeth had exfoliated. In the test and control groups, 15 of 66 lesions (22.7%) and 30 of 69 lesions (43.5%) had progressed, respectively (P < 0.05). The 2-y therapeutic effect (based on pairwise radiographic readings) of infiltration over fluoride varnish was 20.8% (95% confidence interval, 10.6%-30.2%). Nearly all children (96.7%) had enjoyed their visit to the clinic, and more than two-thirds (72.2%) were not worried about returning for treatment. Infiltration is more efficacious than fluoride varnish for controlling carious lesion progression in proximal lesions in primary molars, and most children find the treatment acceptable (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTR.org.au ACTRN12611000827932). Knowledge Transfer Statement: These study findings can help clinicians decide which caries management approach they wish to use to prevent progression of proximal lesions in primary molars. With consideration of cost and patient preference, this information could lead to more appropriate therapeutic decisions.

Manual therapy, exercise therapy, or both, in addition to usual care, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a randomized controlled trial. 1: clinical effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of manual physiotherapy and/or exercise physiotherapy in addition to usual care for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. DESIGN: In this 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial, 206 adults (mean age 66 years) who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA were randomly allocated to receive manual physiotherapy (n = 54), multi-modal exercise physiotherapy (n = 51), combined exercise and manual physiotherapy (n = 50), or no trial physiotherapy (n = 51). The primary outcome was change in the Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) after 1 year. Secondary outcomes included physical performance tests. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Of 206 participants recruited, 193 (93.2%) were retained at follow-up. Mean (SD) baseline WOMAC score was 100.8 (53.8) on a scale of 0-240. Intention to treat analysis showed adjusted reductions in WOMAC scores at 1 year compared with the usual care group of 28.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-47.8) for usual care plus manual therapy, 16.4 (-3.2 to 35.9) for usual care plus exercise therapy, and 14.5 (-5.2 to 34.1) for usual care plus combined exercise therapy and manual therapy. There was an antagonistic interaction between exercise therapy and manual therapy (P = 0.027). Physical performance test outcomes favoured the exercise therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Manual physiotherapy provided benefits over usual care, that were sustained to 1 year. Exercise physiotherapy also provided physical performance benefits over usual care. There was no added benefit from a combination of the two therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000130369.