Restoration of primary teeth: Clinical criteria for assessment of the literature

Department Paediatric Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, England.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. Official Journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. 07/2006; 7(2):48-52. DOI: 10.1007/BF03320814
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This is was to establish a system of clinically based criteria for the assessment of papers published in peer reviewed journals concerning the use of restorative techniques in primary teeth.
Various publications that consider the approaches to be taken to setting up assessment criteria with the dental/medical literature were reviewed. These included the so called 'Cochrane criteria'. On the basis of this review a set of clinically based criteria were drawn up that were then used to produce a list of criteria to be used in a series of systematic reviews of the literature concerning the various restorative techniques, materials and medicaments for pulp therapy and the restoration of primary teeth.
There were 23 criteria that were felt to be appropriate. The list of 23 criteria were deemed to be appropriate for pulp therapy and 21 for restorative techniques and materials. Conclusion.A set of clinically based criteria is suggested for the systematic review of publications on restorative techniques for primary teeth.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several papers have been published to illustrate the effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) as a pulpotomy medicament. Most of these reports do not offer a critical assessment on the data quality. Therefore, this review evaluated whether the currently available evidence is of an appropriate quality to support the long-term effectiveness of MTA as a pulpotomy medicament in primary molars using a standardized assessment criterion. A comprehensive literature search of human clinical outcome studies, which employed MTA as a pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth, was conducted using the MEDLINE database. Two independent observers rated these articles using the standardized assessment criteria. Furthermore, based on the initial sample mentioned in the individual studies and the sample included for the final analysis, the drop-out rates were calculated. Twenty-two studies were included for quality assessment with an excellent interobserver agreement. None of the 22 studies obtained grade A, four studies attained grade B1, five were graded B2 and 13 received grade C. Based on the assessment criteria employed, there was no evidence that MTA was better than present materials and techniques as a pulpotomy medicament. Furthermore, given the low quality of data, it is highly desirable to establish standard requisites for conducting and reporting on pulp therapy studies in primary teeth so as to benefit both researchers and clinicians to produce high-quality studies that are comparable and to prevent the misuse of clinical material and resources.
    International Endodontic Journal 08/2012; 46(3). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02128.x · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • International Endodontic Journal 09/2013; DOI:10.1111/iej.12190 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data sourcesMedline.Study selectionStudies that evaluated the efficacy of MTA as a pulpotomy medicament in primary teeth were included, abstracts, observational studies and case reports were excluded. Only English language studies were considered.Data extraction and synthesisStudies were assessed and graded by two reviewers using a weighted criteria based system and a qualitative summary of the evidence provided.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included, 17 studies compared MTA with formocresol, four studies compared MTA with calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate, Portland cement, calcium-enriched mixture cement (CEM) and one study compared white MTA with grey MTA.Conclusions Based on the assessment criteria employed, there was no evidence that MTA was better than present materials and techniques as a pulpotomy medicament.
    Evidence-based dentistry 01/2013; 14(2):46. DOI:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400931