Sealing Occlusal Dentin Caries in Permanent Molars: 7-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Inconsistent decision making in dental caries diagnosis and treatment: A case-based questionnaire survey

Background and Aims

Delayed implementation of new knowledge into clinical practice poses patient safety risks. This study investigates agreement on use of the dental caries interventions, sealing, and stepwise excavation.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey, based on 11 constructed cases with descriptions of patient symptoms, radiographic, and clinical findings. Interrater agreement on dental caries- and pulp diagnoses and interventions were measured with Cohen's and Light's κ. The data collection period was September 28 to November 5, 2021. To explore variations in use and knowledge factors, we examined Danish dentists' attitudes toward continuing education.

Results

Based on 243 responses, moderate interrater agreement for dental caries and pulp diagnoses and weak agreement on interventions were seen. The agreement with the gold standard for caries was moderate. No agreement was found for dental pulp diagnosis, and for interventions the agreement was weak. No pattern in agreement with the gold standard was seen in relation to case difficulty level. The majority reported knowing of and using stepwise excavation, in conflict with findings that less than half chose stepwise excavation in cases, where considered appropriate. One in four (25%) reported to be unfamiliar with sealing, and half (50%) use sealing regularly. Better access to continuing education and for universities to offer continuing education as alternatives to one-sided private market were requested.

Conclusion

Some patients may receive too radical treatment despite available less invasive evidence-based effective treatments. Dentists acknowledge the importance of continuing education. Easier access and perhaps more incentives for seeking out high-quality continuing education from trustworthy sources are needed.

Comparing the effectiveness of caries arrest by micro-operative treatment to operative treatment: A 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of caries arrest by micro-operative treatment (sealing) to operative treatment (flowable resin composite restoration) through a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted among 7-9-year-old children. At baseline, 630 subjects were screened and 92 children who had at least one carious lesion classified as ICDAS 3 on the pit and fissure of first permanent molar were included. Then they were randomly assigned to the sealant group (73 lesions) and the flowable resin composite group (76 lesions) to receive the corresponding intervention. Lesions status in each group was evaluated every 6 months up to 24 months. Clinical progression of dental caries and materials retention were the outcomes used for group comparisons at p-value < 0.05.

RESULTS

After 24 months, three lesions (4.1%) in the sealant group clinically progressed to dentin caries. No lesion in the flowable composite group was observed a progression. The results of Life-table survival analysis show that the cumulative caries arrest rate had no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.075). However, the cumulative retention rate was 57.5% in the sealant group and 92.1% in the flowable composite group, with significant differences (p < 0.001). The multilevel mixed model showed the sealant had higher risk of retention failure than the flowable composite (OR = 8.66, p < 0.001), while tooth position did not influence material retention (p = 0.083). In addition, the results of Fisher Exact test show that dentin lesions had more retention failure than enamel lesions in the sealant group (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Although sealing microcavitated carious lesions of the first permanent molar achieved lower retention rate than resin composite restoration, both sealing and restoration effectively arrested caries progression for two years.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To preserving dental structure and delaying or eliminating the need for operative procedures, microcavitated carious lesion can be arrested by sealing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn ; Feb 15th, 2020; No. ChiCTR2000029862.

Minimally Invasive Therapies for the Management of Dental Caries—A Literature Review

In recent years, due to a better understanding of the caries pathology and advances in dental materials, the utilization of non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques that delay/obviate the need for traditional restorations has started gaining momentum. This literature review focuses on some of these approaches, including fluoride varnish, silver diamine fluoride, resin sealants, resin infiltration, chemomechanical caries removal and atraumatic restorative treatment, in the context of their chemistries, indications for use, clinical efficacy, factors determining efficacy and limitations. Additionally, we discuss strategies currently being explored to enhance the antimicrobial properties of these treatment modalities to expand the scope of their application.

The efficacy of dental sealant used with bonding agent on occlusal caries (ICDAS 2-4): A 24-month randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Bonding before sealant application enhances retention on saliva-contaminated sound teeth; however, there are few studies of bonding's efficacy on sealant retention on occlusal caries.

AIM

To evaluate a bonding agent's efficacy on sealant retention on occlusal caries and caries transition.

DESIGN

One hundred twenty pairs of first permanent molars with occlusal caries (ICDAS 2-4) from 98 children aged 7.3-9.9 years were included. One molar was randomly selected to use bonding (Adper™ Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE) applied before sealant application (Helioseal^® clear, Ivoclar Vivadent). Bonding was not used on the contralateral tooth. Retention was determined using Simonsen's criteria; caries transition was evaluated using ICDAS scores, DIAGNOdent values, and bitewings at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. Data were analyzed with McNemar's and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Bonding agent use significantly increased sealant retention rates (P < .001). Bonded (B) sealants had a higher retention rate (83.3%) than non-bonded (NB) sealants (53.7%). The difference in the caries-transition rate was not significant between the groups (P > .05). Three teeth (1.4%; NB:B = 2:1) were restored due to radiographic dentin-caries progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a bonding agent before applying sealant on permanent molar occlusal caries (ICDAS 2-4) significantly enhanced sealant retention. Caries progression was rarely detected at the 24-month follow-up.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.