PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 26, 2019Journal of Dental Research74 citationsOpen Access

Child Caries Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Dental Practice

NINicola InnesJCJan ClarksonGDGail Douglas

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

This multicenter 3-arm, parallel-group, patient-randomized controlled trial compared clinical effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies over 3 y for managing dental caries in primary teeth in UK primary dental care. Participants aged 3 to 7 y with at least 1 primary molar with dentinal carious lesion were randomized across 3 arms (1:1:1 via centrally administered system with variable-length random permuted blocks): C+P, conventional carious lesion management (complete carious tooth tissue removal and restoration placement) with prevention; B+P, biological management (sealing in carious tooth tissue restoratively) with prevention; and PA, prevention alone (diet, plaque removal, fluorides, and fissure sealants). Parents, children, and dentists were not blind to allocated arm. Co-primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection and 2) the number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection during follow-up (minimum, 23 mo). In sum, 1,144 participants were randomized (C+P, n = 386; B+P, n = 381; PA, n = 377) by 72 general dental practitioners, of whom 1,058 (C+P, n = 352; B+P, n = 352; PA, n = 354) attended at least 1 study visit and were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 33.8 mo (interquartile range, 23.8 to 36.7). Proportions of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 42%; B+P, 40%; PA, 45%. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dental pain and/or infection when B+P (adjusted risk difference 97.5% CI: -2% -10% to 6%) or PA (4% -4% to 12%) was compared with C+P. The mean (SD) number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 0.62 (0.95); B+P, 0.58 (0.87); and PA, 0.72 (0.98). Superiority could not be concluded for number of episodes between B+P (adjusted incident rate ratio (97.5% CI): 0.95 0.75 to 1.21) or PA (1.18 0.94 to 1.48) and C+P. In conclusion, there was no evidence of a difference among the 3 treatment approaches for incidence or number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection experienced by these participants with high caries risk and established disease (trial registration: ISRCTN77044005).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Innes et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dd144f854f360ad63598a0https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519888882
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Social determinants of health inequalities2005 · 4,978 citations
  2. 2Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis2018 · 149 citations
  3. 3Bitewing and Digital Bitewing Radiography for Detection of Caries Lesions2004 · 199 citations
  4. 4Survival of Adhesive Restorations for Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Clinical Trials.2016 · 24 citations
  5. 5Longitudinal Study of Caries Development from Childhood to Adolescence2017 · 164 citations