Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.

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.

Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.

The certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.

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

To quantify M1 and M2 macrophages in radicular cysts of permanent (n=14 cases) and primary teeth (n=15 cases). All patients who attended the School of Dentistry Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo with primary teeth or permanent molars that were scheduled for extraction and fulfilled the inclusion criteria: absence of pain; presence/absence of fistulae; extensive coronal destruction due to caries lesions without possibility of restoration; pulp necrosis; radiographically visible apical periodontitis; and no previous treatment, were selected. The radicular cysts were removed and subsequently submitted to histopathologic analysis in order to classify the type of inflammatory infiltrate. In addition, CD68 (M1+, M2+) and CD163 (M1-, M2+) markers were quantified through an immunohistochemistry analysis. The data acquired were submitted to a Mann-Whitney test, with a 5% significance level. The patients had a mean age of 38.6years and 5.9years for cysts associated with permanent and primary teeth, respectively. In the histopathological analysis, no significant difference (P=0.87) was found between radicular cysts in primary and permanent teeth regarding the intensity of the chronic inflammatory infiltrate. A significantly greater prevalence of M2 macrophages (P<0.05) was observed in the lesions of both permanent and primary teeth, even though both M1 and M2 macrophages were detected. No significant difference (P>0.05) was found for M1 and M2 macrophages associated with the cysts of primary and permanent teeth. M1 and M2 macrophages were present in radicular cysts associated with primary and permanent teeth, with a greater quantity of M2 cells. The immunophenotypic quantification of M1 and M2 macrophage polarization in radicular cysts associated with primary and permanent teeth were similar.

Non-cleansable carious lesions where sealing is no longer an option should be restored in the vast majority of cases. Prior to restoring the cavity, carious tissue removal is performed, mainly to increase the longevity of the restoration. Such removal, however, should not be conducted in a way that the vital pulp is harmed. This means that in teeth with shallow or moderately deep lesions, selective removal to firm dentine is recommended, while in deep lesions (radiographically extending into the pulpal third or quarter of the dentine) selective removal to soft dentine should be performed. In permanent teeth, stepwise removal is a possible alternative, while in primary teeth the Hall Technique can be considered too. To assess carious tissue removal, the hardness of the dentine should be the primary criterion. Moisture, colour, and additional parameters (like fluorescence of bacterial porphyrins, etc.) might be used, but should be critically evaluated towards their validity and patients' benefit. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific single carious tissue removal method. However, hand or chemomechanical excavation seem useful, as they reduce pain and discomfort during treatment. Current evidence also does not support any specific restoration material or (bonding) strategy for restoring cavities resulting from different carious tissue removal strategies. Prior to restoring the cavity, cavity disinfection is not recommended any longer.

In vivo comparison between measurement from two fluorescence-based devices of occlusal and smooth surface caries in primary and permanent teeth

PurposeThis umbrella review systematically appraised published systematic reviews on Minimal Intervention Dentistry interventions carried out to manage dentine carious primary teeth to determine how best to translate the available evidence into practice, and to provide recommendations for what requires further research.MethodAn experienced information specialist searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and the NIHR Journals Library. In addition, the PROSPERO database was searched to identify forthcoming systematic reviews. Searches were built around the following four concepts: primary teeth AND caries/carious lesion AND Minimal Intervention Dentistry AND systematic review/meta-analysis. Searches were restricted to English language, systematic reviews with/without meta-analyses published between January 2000 and August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts. Interventions included involved no dentine carious tissue removal (fissure sealants, resin infiltration, topical application of 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride, and Hall Technique), non-restorative caries control, and selective removal of carious tissue involving both stepwise excavation and atraumatic restorative treatment. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers. Studies overlap was calculated using corrected covered area.ResultsEighteen systematic reviews were included in total; 8 assessed the caries arresting effects of 38% Silver Demine Fluoride (SDF), 1 on the Hall Technique (HT), 1 on selective removal of carious tissue, and eight investigated interventions using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Included systematic reviews were published between 2006 and 2020, covering a defined time frame of included randomised controlled trials ranging from 1969 to 2018. Systematic reviews assessed the sealing efficacy of fissure sealants and resin infiltration in carious primary teeth were excluded due to pooled data reporting on caries arrest in both enamel and outer third of dentine with the majority of these carious lesions being limited to enamel. Therefore, fissure sealants and resin infiltration are not recommended for the management of dentinal caries lesions in primary teeth. Topical application of 38% SDF showed a significant caries arrest effect in primary teeth (p < 0.05), and its success rate in arresting dental caries increased when it was applied twice (range between 53 and 91%) rather than once a year (range between 31 and 79%). Data on HT were limited and revealed that preformed metal crowns placed using the HT were likely to reduce discomfort at time of treatment, the risk of major failure (pulp treatment or extraction needed) and pain compared to conventional restorations. Selective removal of carious tissue particularly in deep carious lesions has significantly reduced the risk of pulp exposure (77% and 69% risk reduction with one-step selective caries removal and stepwise excavation, respectively). ART showed higher success rate when placed in single surface compared to multi-surface cavities (86% and 48.7–88%, respectively, over 3 years follow-up).ConclusionMinimal Intervention Dentistry techniques, namely 38% SDF, HT, selective removal of carious tissue, and ART for single surface cavity, appear to be effective in arresting the progress of dentinal caries in primary teeth when compared to no treatment, or conventional restorations. There is clear need to increase the emphasis on considering these techniques for managing carious primary teeth as a mainstream option rather than a compromise option in circumstances where the conventional approach is not possible due to cooperation or cost.

Penetration of radiocalcium at the margins of resin and glass ionomer dentine bonding agents in primary and permanent teeth

This study was conducted to analyze the ablation rate and micromorphological aspects of microcavities in enamel and dentin of primary and permanent teeth using a Er: YAG laser system. Micromorphological evaluation has been performed in terms of permanent teeth; however, little information about Er: YAG laser interaction with primary teeth can be found in the literature. Because children have been the most beneficiary patients with laser therapy in our offices, it is extremely necessary to compare the effects of this kind of laser system on the enamel and dentin of permanent and primary teeth. In this study, we used eleven intact primary anterior exfoliated teeth and six extracted permanent molar teeth. We used a commercial laser system: a Er: YAG Twin Light laser system (Fotona Medical Lasers, Slovenia) at 2940 nm, changing average energy levels per pulse (100, 200, 300, and 400 mJ) producing 48 microcavities in enamel and dentin of primary and permanent teeth. Primary teeth are more easily ablated than are permanent teeth, when related to enamel or dentin. However, while this laser system is capable of slowly revealing the enamel’s microstructure, in dentin only the lowest laser energies permit this kind of observation, more easily decomposing the original tissue aspect, when related to primary or permanent teeth. Statistically, the only different factor at the 5% level was an energy per pulse of 400 mJ, confirming the results found in SEM. Our results showed that dentin in both primary and permanent teeth is less resistant to Er: YAG laser ablation; this fact is easily observed under SEM observation and through the ablation rate evaluation.

For an ORCA/EFCD consensus, this review systematically assessed available evidence regarding interventions performed and materials used to manage dentin carious lesions in primary teeth. A search for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 12 months after intervention was performed in PubMed, LILACS, BBO, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA Statement were used for assessment of the included studies. From 101 screened articles, 2 SRs and 5 RCTs, which assessed the effectiveness of interventions in terms of pulp vitality and success of restoration, and 10 SRs and 1 RCT assessing the success of restorative materials were included. For treatments involving no carious tissue removal, the Hall technique showed lower treatment failure for approximal carious lesions compared to complete caries removal (CCR) and filling. For the treatment of deep carious lesions, techniques involving selective caries removal (SCR) showed a reduction in the incidence of pulp exposure. However, the benefit of SCR over CCR in terms of pulp symptoms or restoration success/failure was not confirmed. Regarding restorative materials, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) used to restore multisurface lesions showed the highest success rates compared to other restorative materials (amalgam, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, and compomer), and in the long term (12–48 months) these were also less likely to fail. There is limited evidence supporting the use of PMCs to restore carious lesions with single cavities. Among nonrestorative options, silver diammine fluoride was significantly more effective in arresting caries than other treatments for treating active carious lesions of different depths. Considerable heterogeneity and bias risk were observed in the included studies. Although heterogeneity observed among the studies was substantial, the trends were similar. In conclusion, less invasive caries approaches involving selective or no caries removal seem advantageous in comparison to CCR for patients presenting with vital, symptomless, carious dentin lesions in primary teeth. There is evidence in favor of PMCs for restoring multisurface carious lesions in primary molars.

Caries is a disease that affects both deciduous and permanent dentitions. Caries progresses more rapidly in deciduous enamel than in permanent enamel. Therefore, new caries diagnostic methods need to be tested on the deciduous teeth as well. Quantitative laser–induced fluorescence (QLF I) as well as the quantitative light–induced fluorescence (QLF II) seem promising for the quantification of mineral loss from dental caries but have only been tested on the permanent dentition. The objective of this study was to determine and compare the ability of QLF I and QLF II to quantify mineral loss from carious lesions in both deciduous and permanent teeth. Thirty sound deciduous and 30 sound permanent teeth were cleaned and divided into three groups each containing 10 deciduous and 10 permanent teeth. Windows on the buccal or labial enamel surfaces were demineralized for 48, 72, or 96 h. Images of demineralized enamel were captured using QLF I and QLF II. The images were analyzed to determine the mean change in fluorescence radiance (ΔF, %). The teeth were then sectioned for assessment of lesion depth (µm) and integrated mineral loss (IML, vol% ×µm) using transverse microradiography (TMR), as the ‘gold standard’ for lesion analysis. The results indicated a good correlation for ΔF between QLF I and QLF II in both deciduous (r = 0.96) and permanent teeth (r = 0.98). There was a good correlation between ΔF and TMR (lesion depth and IML) in deciduous teeth (r = 0.76 and 0.84 with QLF I, r = 0.81 and 0.88 with QLF II). In permanent teeth, the correlation between ΔF and TMR (lesion depth and IML) was lower than in deciduous teeth (r = 0.07 and 0.53 with QLF I, r = 0.15 and 0.62 with QLF II). From these results it can be concluded that either QLF method is capable of quantifying mineral loss in early carious lesions in deciduous teeth. Moreover, under the conditions of this study, the use of either QLF method to quantify mineral loss in early carious lesions in deciduous teeth is slightly more accurate than in permanent teeth.

This in vitro study compared the mineral loss of natural and artificially-created caries-affected dentin in primary and permanent teeth using the same protocol to induce caries lesions. Twenty molars presenting natural occlusal dentin caries lesions (10 primary-PriC and 10 perma-nent-PermC; control group), and 20 sound molars (10 primary -PripH and 10 permanent-PermpH; experimental group), were selected. Occlusal cavities were prepared in teeth of the experimental group that were submitted to pH-cycling for 14 days to simulate caries-affected dentin. All specimens were longitudinally sectioned and prepared in order to obtain Knoop micro-hardness values from 15 to 250 urn depth, starting in bottom of center of natural lesions or cavities. The microhardness (KHN) data were submitted to three-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). Considering all depths, there was no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the mineral loss of the control (PriC = 30.9 ± 6.4 and PermC = 40.8 ± 8.6) and experimental (PripH = 27.3 ± 11.1 and PermpH = 35.5 ± 14.0) groups, neither between primary and permanent teeth. The mineral loss of the artificially-created caries-affected dentin is similar to that from naturally developed dentin caries lesions. The pH-cycling model may be a suitable method to simulate caries-affected dentin in both permanent and primary teeth.

Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and previously updated in 2014. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 January 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 23 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (23 January 2018). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcome measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine. We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author. We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at 2 years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low-quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of caries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at 2 years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.

Slow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 13 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 13 August 2014), and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 13 August 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.We first published the review in 2006. The update in 2013 found 302 abstracts, but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review. Parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcomes measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine. We conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author. We found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.We found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.Although 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at two years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.Harms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported. There is insufficeint evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of carries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at two years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.