Clinical and patient-reported outcomes in children with learning disabilities treated using the Hall Technique: a cohort study.

Introduction Preformed metal crowns (PMC) placed using the Hall Technique (HT) are effective for managing carious lesions in primary molars and might be tolerable and successful for children with learning disabilities (CLD), possibly avoiding the need for sedation/ anaesthesia.Aim To investigate the effectiveness of the HT for management of carious lesions in children with learning disabilities through a prospective service evaluation.Methods Sixteen, 4-12-year-old CLD had 27 carious lesions managed using the HT and were followed-up. Outcomes were: 1) incidence of dental pain/infection; 2) success of treatment outcomes as judged by patients and parents/carers; and 3) adverse outcomes.Results Twenty seven teeth treated with HT were followed up for five to 87 months (mean = 24) with no episodes of pain and/or infection in treated teeth. Treatment was rated as causing no discomfort in 80% of children and as successful by 98% of children; 96% of parents/carers, and 100% of dentists. Other adverse outcomes; occlusal surface perforation (n = 8; 30%).Conclusion The HT was acceptable to, and effective in treating carious lesions in CLD who were unable to accept traditional restorative treatment. This alternative treatment option may avoid the need for general anaesthesia.

Dental caries experience, care index and restorative index in children with learning disabilities and children without learning disabilities; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Children with learning disabilities (CLD) have worse health outcomes than children with no learning disabilities (CNLD). This systematic review compared caries experience and met dental care need for CLD to CNLD using Decayed, Missing, Filled Permanent Teeth (DMFT) and decayed, missing/extracted, filled primary teeth (dmft/deft), care index (CI), and restorative index (RI) values. METHODS: Without date or language restrictions four databases were searched for; cross-sectional studies comparing caries experience and CI/ RI in CLD matched to groups of CNLD. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were carried out (random effects model). RESULTS: There were 25 articles with 3976 children (1 to 18 years old), from 18 countries, fitting the inclusion criteria. Children with; Down syndrome were investigated in 11 studies, autism in 8 and mixed learning disabilities in 6. The overall mean DMFT for CLD was 2.31 (standard deviation±1.97; range 0.22 to 7.2) and for CNLD was 2.51 (±2.14; 0.37 to 4.76). Using standardised mean difference (SMD), meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between CLD and CNLD (n = 16 studies) for caries experience (SMD = -0.43; 95%CI = -0.91 to 0.05). This was similar for sub-groups of children with autism (SMD = -0.28; 95%CI = 1.31 to 0.75) and mixed disabilities (SMD = 0.26; 95%CI = -0.94 to 1.47). However, for children with Down syndrome, caries experience was lower for CLD than CNLD (SMD = -0.73; 95%CI = -1.28 to - 0.18). For primary teeth, mean dmft/deft was 2.24 for CLD and 2.48 for CNLD (n = 8 studies). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between CLD and CNLD for caries experience across all disability groups (SMD = 0.41; 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.96), or in sub-groups: Down syndrome (SMD = 0.55; 95%CI- = - 0.40 to 1.52), autism (SMD = 0.43; 95%CI = -0.53 to 2.39) and mixed disabilities (SMD = -0.10; 95%CI = -0.34 to 0.14). The studies' risk of bias were medium to high. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a difference in caries levels in primary or permanent dentitions for CLD and CNLD. This was similar for learning disability sub-groups, except for Down syndrome where dental caries levels in permanent teeth was lower. Data on met need for dental caries was inconclusive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was published in PROSPERO: CRD42017068964 (June 8th, 2017).

Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: This umbrella review comprehensively appraised evidence for silver diamine fluoride (SDF) to arrest and prevent root and coronal caries by summarizing systematic reviews. Adverse events were explored. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO register and Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews investigating SDF for caries prevention or arrest (1970-2018) without language restrictions. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. Corrected covered area was calculated to quantify studies' overlap across reviews. RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included; four focussing on SDF for root caries in adults and seven on coronal caries in children. These cited 30 studies (4 root caries; 26 coronal caries) appearing 63 times. Five systematic reviews were of "low", one "unclear" and five "high" risk of bias. Overlap of studies was very high (50% root caries; 17% coronal caries). High overlap and heterogeneity, mainly comparators and outcome measures, precluded meta-analysis. Results were grouped by aim and outcomes to present an overview of direction and magnitude of effect. SDF had a positive effect on prevention and arrest of coronal and root caries, consistently outperforming comparators (fluoride varnish, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, placebo). For root caries prevention, the prevented fraction (PF) was 25-71% higher for SDF compared to placebo (two systematic reviews with three studies) and PF = 100-725% for root caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies). For coronal caries prevention, PF = 70-78% (two systematic reviews with two studies) and PF = 55-96% for coronal caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies) with arrest rates of 65-91% (four systematic reviews with six studies). Eight systematic reviews reported adverse events, seven of which reported arrested lesions black staining. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews consistently supported SDF's effectiveness for arresting coronal caries in the primary dentition and arresting and preventing root caries in older adults for all comparators. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on SDF for prevention in primary teeth and prevention and arrest in permanent teeth in children. No serious adverse events were reported.

Development of the Dundee Caries Risk Assessment Model (DCRAM)--risk model development using a novel application of CHAID analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To use a novel statistical analysis in the development of caries risk assessment models for preschool children for use in a particular community setting. METHODS: Data were collected longitudinally on a cohort of approximately 1500 children born in one calendar year in the city of Dundee, Scotland. A dental examination and oral microbiological saliva sample, together with parental and health visitor questionnaires, were completed for each child at ages 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. The 1-year data were analysed using chi-squared automated interaction detector analysis (CHAID) to produce a set of caries risk assessment models for predicting caries in 4-year-olds. RESULTS: Four risk models were developed using CHAID analysis for caries at 4 years of age using risk assessment data collected at age 1. These models included two 'any' caries-risk models (n = 697, dmft >0) and two 'high' caries-risk models (n = 784, dmft ≥3) depending on the use of the d(1) (enamel and dentine) or d(3) (dentine only) level of caries detection. The most appropriate model developed for use was shown to be the CHAID high caries-risk model at the d(3) level of detection (d(3) mft ≥3). This had a sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 69%. CONCLUSIONS: An appropriate risk assessment model for use in a particular community setting predicting caries at age 4 years from data collected at age 1 year was developed. This has been termed the Dundee Caries Risk Assessment Model.