Overview of the evidence for clinical interventions in pediatric dentistry

Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry University of lowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Pediatric dentistry (Impact Factor: 0.56). 01/2005; 27(1):6-11.
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this report was to describe the quantity of published literature and types of studies supporting the use of 4 pediatric dentistry procedures: (1) ferric sulfate pulpotomy; (2) stainless steel crowns; (3) space maintainers; and (4) atraumatic restorative technique (ART).
When available, titles and abstracts of reports written in English and published over a 36-year period (1966-2002) concerning these procedures were retrieved from MEDLINE. They were classified using a modified classification scheme that, in addition to the study designs, also considered the 4 dimensions of measuring dental outcomes.
The quantity of available literature concerning each dental procedure varied considerably. Even though many reports were published on treatments, only a small proportion of the published literature for each procedure was found to evaluate outcomes, regardless of outcome dimension. Besides outcomes evaluations, studies on techniques, material properties, and review articles comprised a large proportion of the literature. Clinical dimension of outcomes was most commonly studied. Case series and case reports were the most frequently used study designs to report outcomes.
The outcomes-related literature to support some of the commonly performed treatments is limited both in quantity and study types. More reports are needed to develop the evidence base to support the commonly performed procedures in pediatric dental practice. Additional analyses reporting of the literature are also needed to assess internal and external validity of the studies.

Download full-text


Available from: Arthur J Nowak,
18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate reporting of observational studies in the pediatric dental literature. This assessment included the following steps: (1) developing a model for reporting information in clinical dentistry studies; (2) identifying treatment comparisons in pediatric dentistry that were evaluated by at least 5 observational studies; (3) abstracting from these studies any data indicated by applying the reporting model; and (4) comparing available data elements to the desired data elements in the reporting model. The reporting model included data elements related to: (1) patients; (2) providers; (3) treatment details; and (4) study design. Two treatment comparisons in pediatric dentistry were identified with 5 or more observational studies: (1) stainless steel crowns vs amalgams (10 studies); and (2) composite restorations vs amalgam (5 studies). Results from studies comparing the same treatments varied substantially. Data elements from the reporting model that could have explained some of the variation were often reported inadequately or not at all. Reporting of observational studies in the pediatric dental literature may be inadequate for an informed interpretation of the results. Models similar to that used in this study could be used for developing standards for the conduct and reporting of observational studies in pediatric dentistry.
    Pediatric dentistry 01/2006; 28(1):66-71. · 0.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    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
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of decay in primary molar teeth conventionally involves removal of decayed tooth and placement of a preformed metal crown (also known as a stainless steel crown) to completely cover the tooth or placement of a filling (a soft material which is placed in the hole and hardened) to restore the tooth. Preformed metal crowns are recommended by specialists in children's dentistry for the management of these teeth when they are affected by moderate to advanced tooth decay. We were unable to find any high quality research evidence either for or against this recommendation. No randomised control trials were found which compared removal of decay followed by placement of a preformed metal crown with removal of decay followed by placement of a filling material or no treatment. However, there is some evidence from clinical studies of poor to medium quality that preformed metal crowns may last longer than fillings for these teeth. Confirmation of this will require well controlled clinical trials.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2007; 1(1):CD005512. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Show more