Effectiveness of The Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools' Training Programme: a new Paradigm for Teaching and Learning of Evidence-Based Dentistry.

BACKGROUND: The Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools (WCODS) is a student-led initiative that aims to publish high quality scientific, evidence-based dental content on the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia by equipping its members to use research, critical appraisal and writing skills to create accurate content. In 2019, the Collaboration launched a standardised training programme developed by Wikimedia-trained committee members, academic dental school staff and the Cochrane Oral Health global community. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of this training programme in ensuring WCODS editors follow the processes underpinning Evidence-Based Dentistry (EBD). METHOD: A cohort of dental students and staff (n=136) from six dental schools in the UK and Malaysia took part in a standardised and structured training programme at the annual WCODS training meeting. Participants' abilities and their perceived levels of confidence in carrying out critical analysis of the literature were measured using pre- and post-training surveys, and competency assessments. RESULTS: Participants' skills in conducting literature searches, critical appraisal of the findings and creating and editing a Wikipedia page improved after training. CONCLUSION: The training programme provided participants with the skill set and confidence to apply best practice to create and edit Wikipedia entries. This Collaboration intends to recruit more contributors to improve global oral health literacy using the free online Wikipedia encyclopaedia.

"I guess it looks worse to me, it doesn't look like there's been a problem solved but obviously there is": a qualitative exploration of children's and their parents' views of silver diamine fluoride for the management of carious lesions in children.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence to support the use of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) for managing carious lesions, and the increased interest in SDF worldwide, uptake in the UK remains limited. This study explored parents' and children's views and acceptability of SDF for the management of carious lesions in children. METHODS: Eleven semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 11 parent-child dyads recruited from patients attending Dundee Dental Hospital and School. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Previous dental experience varied across all child participants. Of the 11 children, five had undergone general anaesthesia (GA) for multiple primary tooth extractions. Two had received SDF treatment. Child participants expressed concerns about being picked on by their peers, if they had discoloured anterior teeth. Younger children appeared less concerned about the discolouration and child's gender did not appear to influence parents' decision-making, nor the child's preferences regarding the use of SDF. Parents considered SDF to be particularly useful for anxious or uncooperative children but raised concerns about potential bullying at schools due to the unacceptable dental aesthetics when SDF is applied to anterior teeth. They believed they may be judged by others as neglecting their child's oral health due to the black staining. Both parents and children were more accepting of the SDF when applied to less-visible posterior teeth. Parents accepted the use of SDF if such treatment avoided extractions under GA. CONCLUSION: Despite the unfavourable aesthetics of SDF (black staining), parents appreciated SDF treatment, especially for uncooperative or younger children. However, both parents and children shared concerns about bullying at schools as a consequence of the black staining. Raising awareness about SDF was identified as one approach to encourage the uptake of SDF.

[Consensus recommendations on minimally invasive removal of carious tissue from dentine]. / Aanbevelingen van een consensus­bijeenkomst over weefselsparende manieren om carieus weefsel uit dentine te verwijderen.

The International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC) presented recommendations on terminology, methods of carious tissue removal and managing cavitated carious lesions. It identified 'dental caries' as the disease that dentists should manage by controlling the activity of existing cavitated lesions by preserving as much hard tissue as possible, maintaining pulp sensibility and retaining functional teeth in the long-term. The ICCC recommended the level of hardness as the criterion for determining the clinical consequences of the process of demineralisation and defined new strategies for the selective removal of carious tissue. The starting point is to effectively remove the biofilm from cavitated carious lesions. Only when cavitated carious lesions are either non-cleansable or can no longer be sealed, are restorative interventions indicated, with due regard for the principles of a minimally invasive approach. Applying a restoration facilitates biofilm removal, guards the pulpodental complex and restores form, function and aesthetics.

A Century of Change towards Prevention and Minimal Intervention in Cariology.

Better understanding of dental caries and other oral conditions has guided new strategies to prevent disease and manage its consequences at individual and public health levels. This article discusses advances in prevention and minimal intervention dentistry over the last century by focusing on some milestones within scientific, clinical, and public health arenas, mainly in cariology but also beyond, highlighting current understanding and evidence with future prospects. Dentistry was initially established as a surgical specialty. Dental caries (similar to periodontitis) was considered to be an infectious disease 100 years ago. Its ubiquitous presence and rampant nature-coupled with limited diagnostic tools and therapeutic treatment options-meant that these dental diseases were managed mainly by excising affected tissue. The understanding of the diseases and a change in their prevalence, extent, and severity, with evolutions in operative techniques, technologies, and materials, have enabled a shift from surgical to preventive and minimal intervention dentistry approaches. Future challenges to embrace include continuing the dental profession's move toward a more patient-centered, evidence-based, less invasive management of these diseases, focused on promoting and maintaining oral health in partnership with patients. In parallel, public health needs to continue to, for example, tackle social inequalities in dental health, develop better preventive and management options for existing disease risk groups (e.g., the growing aging population), and the development of reimbursement and health outcome models that facilitate implementation of these evolving strategies. A century ago, almost every treatment involved injections, a drill or scalpel, or a pair of forceps. Today, dentists have more options than ever before available to them. These are supported by evidence, have a minimal intervention focus, and result in better outcomes for patients. The profession's greatest challenge is moving this evidence into practice.

Cariology Clinical Trials: What Are We-and What Should We Be-Looking At?

Randomized control trial (RCT) methodology has compared interventions for the prevention and management of dental caries since the late 1960s. Despite almost 50 years and evidence of significant wastage within the wider biomedical research field, there has been little investigation into what works well and where weaknesses lie. This paper aims to draw attention to areas for improvement within cariology clinical trial methodology by summarizing systematic reviews on interventions and outcomes, and using examples to illustrate some challenges with intervention delivery fidelity, outcome analyses, and intervention co-production. Trial design stage choices are critical to ensure that optimum information is obtained when testing interventions. Intervention choice, outcome choice, and analyses are particularly important, and cariology trials have specific issues associated with them. A systematic search and review of cariology RCTs found 650 RCT reports. Social Network Analysis of interventions revealed a high degree of separation between prevention and management trials, gaps in clinically important comparisons, and a tendency for there to be comparisons within groups; e.g., comparison of interventions within the same, rather than different, levels of invasiveness. Outcomes measured for the same trial reports show: a focus on restoration performance and individual/population caries burden; the growing use of carious lesion activity and economic-related outcomes; and sparse, although an increase in the use of, patient-reported/patient-centered outcomes. Fidelity of adherence to complex interventions can be challenging to measure but is important in interpreting trial findings. Involving target populations in intervention design, delivery, and relating it to the planned rollout, are opportunities to ensure intervention relevance and improved uptake. Outcomes analyses should consider the minimum clinically important differences and outcome relevance measures for the target population. Factors underlying trialists' comparator and outcome choices need to be identified, and there is a need to ensure that a minimum dataset of outcomes allow for combination and comparisons of trial data for systematic review.

Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial.

Less invasive caries management techniques for treating cavitated carious primary teeth, which involve the concept of caries control by managing the activity of the biofilm, are becoming common. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy (minor/major failures) and survival rates (successful cases without any failures) of 3 carious lesion treatment approaches, the Hall Technique (HT), non-restorative caries treatment (NRCT), and conventional restorations (CR), for the management of occlusoproximal caries lesions (ICDAS 3-5) in primary molars. Results at 2.5 years are presented. A total of 169 children (3- to 8-year-olds) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants were allocated to: HT (n = 52; sealing caries with stainless-steel crowns without caries removal), NRCT (n = 52; opening up the cavity and applying fluoride varnish), CR (n = 65; control arm, complete caries removal and compomer restoration). Statistical analyses were: non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney U test and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. One hundred and forty-two participants (84%; HT = 40/52; NRCT = 44/52; CR = 58/65) had follow-up data of 1-33 months (mean = 26). Overall, 25 (HT = 2, NRCT = 9, CR = 14) of 142 participants (17.6%) presented with at least 1 minor failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, or secondary caries; p = 0.013, CI = 0.012-0.018; Mann-Whitney U test). Ten (HT = 1, NRCT = 4, CR = 5) of 142 participants (7.04%) experienced at least 1 major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, unrestorable tooth; p = 0.043, CI = 0.034-0.045). Independent comparisons between 2 samples found that NRCT-CR had no statistically significant difference in failures (p > 0.05), but for CR-HT (p = 0.037, CI = 0.030-0.040) and for NRCT-HT (p = 0.011, CI = 0.010-0.016; Kruskal-Wallis test) significant differences were observed. Cumulative survival rates were HT = 92.5%, NRCT = 70.5%, and CR = 67.2% (p = 0.012). NRCT and CR outcomes were comparable. HT performed better than NRCT and CR for all outcomes. This study was funded by the Paediatric Dentistry Department, Greifswald University, Germany (Trial registration No. NCT01797458).

Contemporary operative caries management: consensus recommendations on minimally invasive caries removal.

The International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC) presented recommendations on terminology, on carious tissue removal and on managing cavitated carious lesions. It identified 'dental caries' as the name of the disease that dentists should manage, and the importance of controlling the activity of existing cavitated lesions to preserve hard tissues, maintain pulp sensibility and retain functional teeth in the long term. The ICCC recommended the level of hardness (soft, leathery, firm, and hard dentine) as the criterion for determining the clinical consequences of the disease and defined new strategies for carious tissue removal: 1) Selective removal of carious tissue - including selective removal to soft dentine and selective removal to firm dentine; 2) stepwise removal - including stage 1, selective removal to soft dentine, and stage 2, selective removal to firm dentine 6 to 12 months later; and 3) non-selective removal to hard dentine - formerly known as complete caries removal (a traditional approach no longer recommended). Adoption of these terms will facilitate improved understanding and communication among researchers, within dental educators and the wider clinical dentistry community. Controlling the disease in cavitated carious lesions should be attempted using methods which are aimed at biofilm removal or control first. Only when cavitated carious dentine lesions are either non-cleansable or can no longer be sealed, are restorative interventions indicated. Carious tissue is removed purely to create conditions for long-lasting restorations. Bacterially contaminated or demineralised tissues close to the pulp do not need to be removed. The evidence and, therefore these recommendations, supports minimally invasive carious lesion management, delaying entry to, and slowing down, the destructive restorative cycle by preserving tooth tissue, maintaining pulp sensibility and retaining the functional tooth-restoration complex long-term.

The Hall Technique 10 years on: Questions and answers.

It is ten years since the first paper on the Hall Technique was published in the British Dental Journal and almost 20 years since the technique first came to notice. Dr Norna Hall a (now retired) general dental practitioner from the north of Scotland had, for many years, been managing carious primary molar teeth by cementing preformed metal crowns over them, with no local anaesthesia, tooth preparation or carious tissue removal. This first report, a retrospective analysis of Dr Hall's treatments, caused controversy. How could simply sealing a carious lesion, with all the associated bacteria and decayed tissues, possibly be clinically successful? Since then, growing understanding that caries is essentially a biofilm driven disease rather than an infectious disease, explains why the Hall Technique, and other 'sealing in' carious lesion techniques, are successful. The intervening ten years has seen robust evidence from several randomised control trials that are either completed or underway. These have found the Hall Technique superior to comparator treatments, with success rates (no pain or infection) of 99% (UK study) and 100% (Germany) at one year, 98% and 93% over two years (UK and Germany) and 97% over five years (UK). The Hall Technique is now regarded as one of several biological management options for carious lesions in primary molars. This paper covers commonly asked questions about the Hall Technique and speculates on what lies ahead.

Restorative Thresholds for Carious Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Current evidence supports noninvasive/nonrestorative treatment of "early" carious lesions: those confined to enamel or reaching the enamel-dentin junction. The extent that dentists' thresholds for intervening restoratively have changed with this evidence is unknown. This systematic review aimed to determine dentists' and therapists' current lesion threshold for carrying our restorative interventions in adults/children and primary/permanent teeth. Embase, Medline via PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for observational studies, without language, time, or quality restrictions. Screening and data extraction were independent and in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses with subgroup and meta-regression analysis were performed. Thirty studies, mainly involving dentists, met the inclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in sampling frames, methods, and scales used to investigate thresholds. The studies spanned 30 y (1983-2014), and sample representativeness and response bias issues were likely to have affected the results. Studies measured what dentists said they would do rather than actually did. Studies represented 17 countries, focusing mainly on adults ( n = 17) and permanent teeth ( n = 24). For proximal carious lesions confined to enamel (not reaching the enamel-dentin junction), 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-28%) of dentists/therapists would intervene invasively. The likelihood of a restorative intervention almost doubled (risk ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.68-2.33) in high caries risk patients. For proximal lesions extending up to the enamel-dentin junction, 48% (95% CI, 40%-56%) of dentists/therapists would intervene restoratively. For occlusal lesions with enamel discoloration/cavitation but no clinical/radiographic dentin involvement, 12% (95% CI, 6%-22%) of dentists/therapists stated they would intervene, increasing to 74% (95% CI, 56%-86%) with dentin involvement. There was variance between countries but no significant temporal trend. A significant proportion of dentists/therapists said they would intervene invasively (restoratively) on carious lesions where evidence and clinical recommendations indicate less invasive therapies should be used. There is great need to understand decisions to intervene restoratively and to find implementation interventions that translate research evidence into clinical practice.

How do we create, and improve, the evidence base?

Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners).

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology.

Variation in the terminology used to describe clinical management of carious lesions has contributed to a lack of clarity in the scientific literature and beyond. In this article, the International Caries Consensus Collaboration presents 1) issues around terminology, a scoping review of current words used in the literature for caries removal techniques, and 2) agreed terms and definitions, explaining how these were decided.Dental cariesis the name of the disease, and thecarious lesionis the consequence and manifestation of the disease-the signs or symptoms of the disease. The termdental caries managementshould be limited to situations involving control of the disease through preventive and noninvasive means at a patient level, whereascarious lesion managementcontrols the disease symptoms at the tooth level. While it is not possible to directly relate the visual appearance of carious lesions' clinical manifestations to the histopathology, we have based the terminology around the clinical consequences of disease (soft, leathery, firm, and hard dentine). Approaches to carious tissue removal are defined: 1)selective removal of carious tissue-includingselective removal to soft dentineandselective removal to firm dentine; 2)stepwise removal-including stage 1,selective removal to soft dentine, and stage 2,selective removal to firm dentine6 to 12 mo later; and 3)nonselective removal to hard dentine-formerly known ascomplete caries removal(technique no longer recommended). Adoption of these terms, around managing dental caries and its sequelae, will facilitate improved understanding and communication among researchers and within dental educators and the wider clinical dentistry community.

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal.

The International Caries Consensus Collaboration undertook a consensus process and here presents clinical recommendations for carious tissue removal and managing cavitated carious lesions, including restoration, based on texture of demineralized dentine. Dentists should manage the disease dental caries and control activity of existing cavitated lesions to preserve hard tissues and retain teeth long-term. Entering the restorative cycle should be avoided as far as possible. Controlling the disease in cavitated carious lesions should be attempted using methods which are aimed at biofilm removal or control first. Only when cavitated carious lesions either are noncleansable or can no longer be sealed are restorative interventions indicated. When a restoration is indicated, the priorities are as follows: preserving healthy and remineralizable tissue, achieving a restorative seal, maintaining pulpal health, and maximizing restoration success. Carious tissue is removed purely to create conditions for long-lasting restorations. Bacterially contaminated or demineralized tissues close to the pulp do not need to be removed. In deeper lesions in teeth with sensible (vital) pulps, preserving pulpal health should be prioritized, while in shallow or moderately deep lesions, restoration longevity becomes more important. For teeth with shallow or moderately deep cavitated lesions, carious tissue removal is performed according toselective removal to firm dentine.In deep cavitated lesions in primary or permanent teeth,selective removal to soft dentineshould be performed, although in permanent teeth,stepwise removalis an option. The evidence and, therefore, these recommendations support less invasive carious lesion management, delaying entry to, and slowing down, the restorative cycle by preserving tooth tissue and retaining teeth long-term.

Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results.

Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques, are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. There is also increasing interest in techniques where no caries is removed. We present the 1-yr results of clinical efficacy for 3 caries management options for occlusoproximal cavitated lesions in primary molars: conventional restorations (CR; complete caries removal and compomer restoration), Hall technique (HT; no caries removal, sealing in with stainless steel crowns), and nonrestorative caries treatment (NRCT; no caries removal, opening up the cavity, teaching brushing and fluoride application). In sum, 169 children (3-8 yr old; mean, 5.56 ± 1.45 yr) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were carried out by specialist pediatric dentists or postgraduate trainees. One lesion per child received CR, HT, or NRCT. Outcome measures were clinical failure rates, grouped as minor failure (restoration loss/need for replacement, reversible pulpitis, caries progression, etc.) and major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, etc.). There were 148 children (87.6%) with a minimum follow-up of 11 mo (mean, 12.23 ± 0.98 mo). Twenty teeth were recorded as having at least 1 minor failure: NRCT, n = 8 (5%); CR, n = 11 (7%); HT, n = 1 (1%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Only the comparison between NRCT and CR showed no significant difference (p = .79, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.80). Nine (6%) experienced at least 1 major failure: NRCT, n = 4 (2%); CR, n = 5 (3%); HT, n = 0 (0%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Individual comparison of NRCT and CR showed no statistically significant difference in major failures (p = .75, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.76). Success and failure rates were not significantly affected by pediatric dentists' level of experience (p = .13, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.14). The HT was significantly more successful clinically than NRCT and CR after 1 yr, while pairwise analyses showed comparable results for treatment success between NRCT and CR (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01797458).

Prevalence and characteristics of non-syndromic orofacial clefts and the influence of consanguinity.

UNLABELLED: The Objective of this study was to identify the prevalence and describe the characteristics of non-syndromic orofacial cleft (NSOFC) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and examine the influence of consanguinity. STUDY DESIGN: Six hospitals were selected to represent Jeddah's five municipal districts. New born infants with NSOFC born between 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2011 were clinically examined and their number compared to the total number of infants born in these hospitals to calculate the prevalence of NSOFC types and sub-phenotypes. Referred Infants were included for the purpose of studying NSOFC characteristics and their relationship to consanguinity. Information on NSOFC infants was gathered through parents' interviews, infants 'files and patient examinations. RESULTS: Prospective surveillance of births resulted in identifying 37 NSOFC infants born between 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2011 giving a birth prevalence of 0.80/1000 living births. The total infants seen, including referred cases, were 79 children. Consanguinity among parents of cleft palate (CP) cases was statistically higher than that among cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) patients (P = 0.039). Although there appears to be a trend in the relationship between consanguinity and severity of CL/P sub-phenotype, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.248). CONCLUSIONS: Birth prevalence of NSOFC in Jeddah City was 0.8/1000 live births with CL/P: 0.68/1000 and CP: 0.13/1000. Both figures were low compared to the global birth prevalence (NSOFC: 1.25/1000, CL/P: 0.94/1000 and CP: 0.31/1000 live births). Consanguineous parents were statistically higher among CP cases than among other NSOFC phenotypes.

Modern approaches to caries management of the primary dentition.

When prevention of dental caries fails, and a child is exposed to the risk of pain and infection, the disease must be managed to reduce this risk. There is growing evidence supporting more 'biological' and fewer 'surgical' approaches to managing dental caries in primary teeth. These biological methods include partial and stepwise caries removal procedures, as well as techniques where no caries is removed. An overview of clinical trials comparing these biological methods to complete caries removal shows that they perform as well as traditional methods and have the advantage of reducing the incidence of iatrogenic pulpal exposures. The Hall Technique is one biological approach to managing caries in primary molars which involves sealing caries beneath preformed metal (stainless steel) crowns. The crown is cemented over the tooth without caries removal, tooth preparation or use of local anaesthesia. The clinical steps for the Hall Technique are straightforward but, as with all dental care provision, appropriate treatment planning for the procedure requires skill. The Hall Technique offers another method of managing early to moderately advanced, active carious lesions in primary molars, with good evidence of effectiveness and acceptability. This evidence aligns with the positive findings of other studies on biological strategies for managing caries in primary teeth.

Sealing caries in primary molars: randomized control trial, 5-year results.

The Hall Technique (HT) is a method for managing carious primary molars. Decay is sealed under pre-formed metal crowns without any caries removal, tooth preparation, or local anesthesia. The aim of this study was to compare HT clinical/radiographic failure rates with General Dental Practitioners' (GDPs) standard (control) restorations. We conducted a split-mouth, randomized control trial (132 children, aged 3-10 yrs, GDPs n = 17) in Scotland. There were 264 study teeth with initial lesions, 42% of which were radiographically > half-way into dentin, and 67% of which had Class II restorations. Teeth were randomized to HT (intervention) or GDPs' usual treatment (control). Annual clinical/radiographic follow-up data were recorded. Ninety-one patients (69%) had 48 months' minimum follow-up. At 60 months, 'Major' failures (irreversible pulpitis, loss of vitality, abscess, or unrestorable tooth) were recorded: HT, 3 (3%); control restorations, 15 (16.5%) (p = 0.000488; NNT 8); and 'Minor' failures (reversible pulpitis, restoration loss/wear/fracture; or secondary caries): HT, 4 (5%); control restorations, 38 (42%) (p < 0.000001; NNT 3). Overall, there were follow-up data for 130 patients (2-60 mos): 'Major' failures: HT, 3 (2%); control restorations, 22 (17%) (p = 0.000004; NNT 7); and 'Minor' failures, HT, 7 (5%); control restorations, 60 (46%) (p < 0.000001; NNT 3). Sealing in caries by the Hall Technique statistically, and clinically, significantly outperformed GDPs' standard restorations in the long term (Trial registration no. ISRCTN 47267892).

Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth.

BACKGROUND: Preformed metal crowns (PMCs) are recommended by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) for restoring badly broken down primary molar teeth. However, few dental practitioners adopt this technique in clinical practice, citing cost and clinical difficulty as reasons for this. Whilst there is a subjective impression by clinical academics that PMCs provide a more durable restoration than filling materials, there appears to be little evidence within the literature to support this. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes for primary molar teeth restored using PMCs compared to those restored with filling materials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The literature was searched using: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005); EMBASE (1980 to August 2005); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1976 to August 2005). Relevant publications' reference lists were reviewed for relevant articles. The most recent search was carried out on 24 August 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of PMCs compared with filling materials or where there had been no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results to decide whether it was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and all three review authors studied these. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven records were retrieved by the search strategies of which some were duplicates. Of these, 14 studies were scrutinised. No studies met the inclusion criteria and six studies were excluded from the review as they were either retrospective in design or reported as prospective outcomes but not randomised. No data were available for extraction and analysis and therefore, no conclusion could be made as to whether PMCs were more successful than filling materials for restoring primary molar teeth. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs were available for appraisal. Whilst this technique is recommended by the BSPD for use in clinical practice, the evidence to support this is not strong, consisting mainly of case reports and uncontrolled studies. It is important that the absence of evidence for PMCs is not misinterpreted as evidence for their lack of efficacy. There is a strong need for prospective RCTs comparing PMCs and fillings for managing decayed primary molar teeth. The lower levels of evidence that have been produced, however, have strength in that the clinical outcomes are consistently in favour of PMCs, despite many of the studies placing PMCs on the most damaged of the pair of teeth being analysed.