Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs together with the ADA Science and Research Institute's program for Clinical and Translational Research conducted a systematic review and developed recommendations for the treatment of moderate and advanced cavitated caries lesions in patients with vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched for systematic reviews comparing carious tissue removal (CTR) approaches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Trip Medical Database. The authors also conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing direct restorative materials in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved. The panel conditionally recommended for the use of conservative CTR approaches, especially for advanced lesions. Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence suggests that more conservative CTR approaches may decrease the risk of adverse effects. All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth.

Direct materials for restoring caries lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth. TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.

Effect of preradiation dental intervention on incidence of osteoradionecrosis in patients with head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine whether dental intervention involving bone or soft-tissue manipulation preradiotherapy (pre-RT) is associated with lower rates of osteoradionecrosis of the jaw (ORNJ) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors included relevant studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including observational studies published from 2007 through 2021 and involving adults who underwent dental intervention pre-RT for HNC. Authors assessed evidence certainty by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risk estimates and hazard ratios. When meta-analysis was not possible, study-level measures of association and narrative summaries of the evidence were reported. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. From the pooled, unadjusted analysis, patients undergoing pre-RT extractions may have a 55% increased risk of experiencing ORNJ (relative risk, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.86; very low certainty); the unadjusted pooled hazard ratio was 3.19 (95% CI, 0.99 to 10.31; very low certainty), corresponding to a possible increased hazard of developing ORNJ (very low certainty). Findings for other pre-RT procedures manipulating bone or tissue relied on limited, observational studies with low or very low certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Mostly very low certainty evidence suggests that patients with HNC who need pre-RT dental intervention may have an increased risk of developing ORNJ compared with those who do not. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Maintaining optimal oral health may help reduce the need for urgent pre-RT dental treatment, potentially reducing ORNJ risk and minimizing delay of oncologic treatment in patients with HNC.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on antibiotic use for the urgent management of pulpal- and periapical-related dental pain and intraoral swelling: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.

Antibiotics for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, symptomatic apical periodontitis, and localized acute apical abscess: Systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use. TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonrestorative treatments for carious lesions: A report from the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated evidence-based clinical recommendations for the arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated dental caries using nonrestorative treatments in children and adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on nonrestorative treatments for noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The expert panel formulated 11 clinical recommendations, each specific to lesion type, tooth surface, and dentition. Of the most effective interventions, the panel provided recommendations for the use of 38% silver diamine fluoride, sealants, 5% sodium fluoride varnish, 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, and 5,000 parts per million fluoride (1.1% sodium fluoride) toothpaste or gel, among others. The panel also provided a recommendation against the use of 10% casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although the recommended interventions are often used for caries prevention, or in conjunction with restorative treatment options, these approaches have shown to be effective in arresting or reversing carious lesions. Clinicians are encouraged to prioritize use of these interventions based on effectiveness, safety, and feasibility.