Article

Operative caries management in adults and children

Dundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Park Place, Dundee, Tayside, UK, DD1 4HN.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2013; 3(3):CD003808. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.
To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.
The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.
Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.
Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.
In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I(2) = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I(2) = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.
Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
160 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify, appraise and summarize existing knowledge and knowledge gaps in practice-relevant questions in pediatric dentistry. A systematic mapping of systematic reviews was undertaken for domains considered important in daily clinical practice. The literature search covered questions in the following domains: behavior management problems/dental anxiety; caries risk assessment and caries detection including radiographic technologies; prevention and non-operative treatment of caries in primary and young permanent teeth; operative treatment of caries in primary and young permanent teeth; prevention and treatment of periodontal disease; management of tooth developmental and mineralization disturbances; prevention and treatment of oral conditions in children with chronic diseases/developmental disturbances/obesity; diagnosis, prevention and treatment of dental erosion and tooth wear; treatment of traumatic injuries in primary and young permanent teeth and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Abstracts and full text reviews were assessed independently by two reviewers and any differences were solved by consensus. AMSTAR was used to assess the risk of bias of each included systematic review. Reviews judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias were used to formulate existing knowledge and knowledge gaps. Out of 81 systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria, 38 were judged to have a low or moderate risk of bias. Half of them concerned caries prevention. The quality of evidence was high for a caries-preventive effect of daily use of fluoride toothpaste and moderate for fissure sealing with resin-based materials. For the rest the quality of evidence for the effects of interventions was low or very low. There is an urgent need for primary clinical research of good quality in most clinically-relevant domains in pediatric dentistry.
    PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(2):e0117537. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0117537 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background For treating deep caries lesions, selective or stepwise (one- and two-step) incomplete excavation seems advantageous compared with complete caries removal. However, current evidence regarding the success, as defined by not requiring any retreatments, or survival of teeth after different excavations is insufficient for definitive recommendation, especially when treating deciduous teeth. Moreover, restoration integrity has not been comparatively analyzed longitudinally, and neither patients¿, dentists¿ or parents¿ preferences nor the clinical long-term costs emanating from both initial and retreatments have been reported yet.Methods/DesignThe planned study is a prospective multicenter, two-arm parallel group, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing selective and stepwise excavation in deciduous molars with deep, active caries lesions without pulpal symptoms. We will recruit 300 children aged between three and nine-years-old with a minimum of one such molar. Patients participating in another study, or those with systemic diseases, disabilities or known allergies to used materials as well patients with teeth expected to exfoliate within the next 18 months will be excluded. After inclusion, sequence generation will be performed. Initial treatment will follow dental routine. During excavation, leathery, moist and reasonably soft dentin will be left in proximity to the pulp followed by adhesive restoration of the cavity. Afterwards, patients¿, dentists¿ and parents¿ subjective assessment of the treatment will be recorded using visual analogue or Likert scales. Re-examination will be performed after six months, and only then teeth will be allocated to one of the two interventions. Selectively excavated teeth will not be treated further, whilst for stepwise caries removal, a second excavation will be performed until only hard dentin remains. Clinical re-evaluations will be performed after 12, 24 and 36 months. Restorations will be reassessed using modified Ryge criteria. Objectively or subjectively required retreatments will determine success and survival. Retreatments will be evaluated both subjectively and regarding generated costs.DiscussionBased on the results of the trial, decision-making for treating deep caries lesions in deciduous molars based on multiple criteria should be feasible.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02232828 (registered on 29 November 2014).
    Trials 01/2015; 16(1):11. DOI:10.1186/s13063-014-0525-9 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whilst being the most prevalent disease worldwide, dental caries is increasingly concentrated in high-risk populations. New caries treatments should therefore be evaluated not only in terms of their cost-effectiveness in individuals, but also their effects on the distribution of costs and benefits across different populations. To treat deep caries, there are currently three strategies: selective (one-step incomplete), stepwise (two-step incomplete) and complete excavation. Building on prior research that found selective excavation generally cost-effective, we compared the costs-effectiveness of different excavations in low- and high-risk patients, hypothesizing that selective excavation had greater cost-effectiveness-advantages in patients with high compared with low risk. An average tooth-level Markov-model was constructed following the posterior teeth in an initially 18-year old male individual, either with low or high risk, over his lifetime. Risk was assumed to be predicted by several parameters (oral hygiene, social position, dental service utilization), with evidence-based transition probabilities or hazard functions being adjusted for different risk status where applicable. Total lifetime treatment costs were estimated for German healthcare, with both mixed public-private and only private out-of-pocket costs being calculated. For cost-effectiveness-analysis, micro-simulations were performed and joint parameter uncertainty introduced by random sampling of probabilities. Cohort analyses were used for assessing the underlying reasons for potential differences between strategies and populations. Selective excavation was more effective and less costly than both alternatives regardless of an individual's risk. All three strategies were less effective and more costly in patients with high compared with low risk, whilst the differences between risk groups were smallest for selective excavation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness-advantages of selective excavation were more pronounced in high-risk groups, who also benefitted the most from reduced private out-of-pocket treatment costs. Whilst caries excavation does not tackle the underlying sources for both the development of caries lesions and the potential differences of individuals' risk status, selective excavation seems most suitable to treat deep lesions, especially in patients with high-risk, who over-proportionally benefit from the resulting health-gains and cost-savings.
    BMC Oral Health 12/2014; 14(53). DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-14-153 · 1.15 Impact Factor