Risk of bias and methodological critical appraisal in systematic reviews of non- and micro-invasive caries management for primary and permanent teeth.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric dentistry should rely on evidence-based clinical decisions supported by high-quality, unbiased systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of SRs focused on non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and ProQuest, up to March 2023 to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs) focused on non- and micro-invasive caries treatment. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the included SRs and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 39 SRs were included in the analysis. Among these, 27 SRs (69.2%) were assessed as having critically low methodological quality, 11 SRs (28.2%) were considered to have low methodological quality and only one SR was rated as high-quality. The primary concern identified was the absence of protocol registration before the commencing the study, observed in 33 SR when using the AMSTAR 2 tool. According to the ROBIS tool, 21 studies (53.8%) were categorised as low risk of bias, 10 (25.6%) as high risk and eight (20.5%) as unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that SRs focused on non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries in children and adolescents had critically low methodological quality according to the AMSTAR 2 tool but demonstrated a low risk of bias based on the ROBIS tool. These findings highlight the importance of emphasizing prospective protocol registration, clear reporting of statistical analyses, and addressing potential bias implications within this topic. By addressing these issues, we can enhance the quality of SRs and ensure that clinical decisions rely on unbiased and trustworthy evidence. Registry DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/AR4MS.

Do the clinical practice guidelines for paediatric dentistry meet the quality standards? A meta-research and quality appraisal using the AGREE II tool.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) enhance health care and aid clinicians' decisions. AIM: To evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry using the AGREE II tool. DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, LIVIVO, Lilacs, international guidelines websites, scientific societies, and gray literature were searched until September 2021. We included paediatric dental clinical guidelines and excluded drafts or guidelines for patients with special needs. Two independent reviewers performed quality assessment using the APPRAISAL OF GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH & EVALUATION II (AGREE II) instrument. We calculated the mean overall domain scores (95% confidence interval) for each guideline. We used regression analysis to correlate the score of overall assessment and the six domains of AGREE II with guideline characteristics. RESULTS: Forty-four guidelines were included in this study. Highest mean score was for Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation; 58%, 95% CI: 50.8-64.9), whereas the lowest was for Domain 5 (Applicability; 16%, 95% CI: 10.8-21.4). The reporting quality was improved in Domains 1-5 with reporting checklists (p < .001), whereas that of Domain 6 was improved by decreasing years since publication (p = .047). CONCLUSION: Paediatric dental guidelines do not comply with the methodological quality standard, especially in Domain 5 (Applicability). The AGREE reporting checklist should be implemented with a system to evaluate the certainty of evidence for future guidelines.

A importância dos estudos clínicos randomizados e seu impacto na tomada de decisão clínica / The importance of randomized clinical trials and their impact on clinical decision making

Os ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) são considerados o padrão ouro e o mais alto nível de evidência científica para estudos de intervenção, precedidos apenas pela síntese dos mesmos (revisões sistemáticas). Tanto os responsáveis pela tomada de decisões, quanto os desenvolvedores de diretrizes precisam usar tais estudos, bem como suas sínteses, para desenvolver diretrizes clínicas de alta qualidade para auxiliar os profissionais na tomada de decisões. Portanto, os ECRs precisam ser bem delineados para minimizar o risco de viés, a fim de construir evidências científicas confiáveis em relação aos benefícios e efeitos colaterais das intervenções clínicas, bem como para garantir a transparência na concepção da metodologia de estudo e na comunicação dos resultados. Ensaios clínicos mal delineados representam um risco para a prática clínica, assim como desperdício de tempo, esforço e recursos financeiros na ciência. Este comentário visa destacar e discutir questões relacionadas à qualidade dos ECRs e seu efeito na tomada de decisões clínicas, bem como enfatizar a conscientização sobre a necessidade de avaliar criteriosamente os ensaios clínicos que serão utilizados para embasar a prática clínica.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard and the highest level of scientific evidence, preceded only by systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. Both policy makers and guideline developers need to use such studies, as well as systematic reviews of RCTs, to develop high-quality clinical guidelines to assist dentists in making clinical decisions. Therefore, randomized controlled trials need to be well designed and have a reduced number of systematic errors to build reliable scientific evidence regarding the benefits and side effects of clinical interventions, as well as to ensure transparency in the design of study methodology and reporting of results, all of which will reduce potential biases. Poorly designed clinical trials pose a risk to clinical practice, as well as a waste of time and effort for dentists and even a waste of resources in science. This commentary aims to highlight and discuss problems related to the quality of randomized controlled clinical trials and their effect on dental surgeons' clinical decision making, as well as emphasizing the importance of choosing high quality clinical trials as a basis for their clinical practice.

ART restorations for occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars: a two-year survival and cost analysis of an RCT comparing two GIC brands

Abstract There are many glass ionomer cements available on the Brazilian market for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), however, there is still a gap in the literature regarding their cost-effectiveness. Objectives To evaluate the influence of restorative materials (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE; and Vitro Molar, Nova DFL) in the two-year survival rate and cost-effectiveness of occluso-proximal ART restorations in primary molars. Methodology A total of 117 children (aged four to eight years) with at least one occluso-proximal carious lesion in primary molars were selected and randomly divided in treatment groups (KM or VM) in this parallel randomized controlled trial. Treatments followed ART premises and were conducted in public schools by trained operators in Barueri, Brazil. A trained, calibrated, and blinded examiner performed the evaluations after two, six, 12, and 24 months (k=0.92). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate restoration survival and Cox regression was used to test the association with clinical factors (α=5%). For cost analysis, material and professional costs were considered. Monte Carlo analysis was used to generate a cost-effectiveness plane and bootstrapping was used to compare material costs over the years. Results The overall survival rate was 36.9% after two years (48.6% for KM and 25.4% for VM). Restorations with VM failed more than those with KM (HR=1.70; 95% CI=1.06-2.73; p=0.027). VM presented lower initial cost, but no difference was observed between groups considering the two-year incremental cost. Conclusion After a two-year evaluation, KM proved to be a better option than VM for occluso-proximal ART restorations in primary molars. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02267720

Atraumatic restorative treatment restorations performed in different settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are potential barriers to using the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach in conventional dental offices, as many professionals assume that it is only used for field conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the survival data of ART restorations in permanent and primary teeth when performed in and out of the conventional environment. METHODS: Searches were performed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases up to April 2020. Studies that evaluated ART restorations were prospective and had survival rate data were included. The risk of bias was evaluated by Rob 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Meta-analyses were carried out considering as outcome the survival rate of primary and permanent teeth. Subgroups analysis was performed for setting and type of cavity (occlusal or multi-surface). RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. For primary teeth, in general, the overall percentage of survival rate was not influenced by setting, ranging up to 71% in 12 months to 65% in 36 months. Similarly, for permanent teeth, the overall percentage of survival rate was not influenced by setting, ranging up to 96% in 12 months to 61% in 36 months. CONCLUSION: ART is a feasible approach for field settings as well as conventional dental offices. PROSPERO: CRD42020184680.