No abstract

BackgroundDespite the increasing number of studies evaluating patient reported outcome measures (PROs), there is no clearness regarding which restorative treatment offers major benefits based on the pediatric patient perspective.AimTo compare different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry regarding patient-reported outcomes.DesignLiterature searching was carried out on prospective studies indexed in PubMed, Scopus and OpenGrey. A Mixed Treatment Comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis was undertaken considering the results from reviewed studies. Anxiety, pain and quality of life were extracted as mean with standard deviation, percentage of pain, and mean difference of scores with standard deviation, respectively. For direct comparisons, data were combined using a random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. For indirect comparisons, fixed and random effects were chosen through comparison of competing models based on the Deviance Information Criteria (DIC). The expected efficacy ranking based on the posterior probabilities of all treatment rankings was also calculated.ResultsAn initial search resulted in 4,322 articles, of which 17 were finally selected. Due to unavailability of data, only pain, anxiety and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were statistically analyzed. The difference in means (95% CI) of anxiety between treatments using only hand instruments with or without chemomechanical agents were -5.35 (-6.42 to -4.20) and -5.79 (-7.77 to -3.79) respectively when compared to conventional treatment using rotary instruments and/or local anesthesia. Regarding pain, there was a trend for treatments without rotary instruments and local anesthesia to be less frequently reported as painful. No statistical difference was found intragroup nor among treatments for OHRQoL.ConclusionsAnxiety and pain are directly related with more invasive restorative treatments. On the other hand, quality of life is not improved regardless of the restorative technique used. Further well-designed prospective studies regarding PROs in children are still necessary.

Dental caries is the most prevalent non-communicative disease worldwide. Although the etiological factors are well known for years, reducing the number of decayed and missing teeth in children still remains as a barrier. Preventive and curative options are numerous but little is known about their economical advantages. Selecting the intervention that offers the best balance of effectiveness and financial resources becomes crucial in the current situation of budget restrictions worldwide. Areas covered: This expert review summarizes available evidence on cost-effectiveness analyses of preventive and curative measures to manage dental caries in children. Expert commentary: Preventive measures have been more extensively studied than dental caries treatment. Only water fluoridation and tooth brushing are well-established as cost-effective preventive approaches. Despite the increasing number of cost analysis treatment studies in the literature, most of them focus on the cost description, with no correlation to the intervention effectiveness. There is a current need of well-designed and well-reported cost-effectiveness regarding dental caries management.

IntroductionDespite the widespread acceptance of conventional treatment using composite resin in primary teeth, there is limited evidence that this approach is the best option in paediatric clinics. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement has gradually become more popular because it performs well in clinical studies, is easy to handle and is patient friendly. Therefore, the aim of this randomised clinical trial study is to compare the restoration longevity of conventional treatment using composite resin with that of ART in posterior primary teeth. As secondary outcomes, cost-efficacy and patient self-reported discomfort will also be tested.Methods and analysisChildren aged 3–6 years presenting with at least one occlusal and/or occlusal-proximal cavity will be randomly assigned to one of two groups according to the dental treatment: ART (experimental group) or composite resin restoration (control group). The dental treatment will be performed at a dental care trailer located in an educational complex in Barueri/SP, Brazil. The unit of randomisation will be the child. A sample size of 240 teeth with occlusal cavities and 188 teeth with occlusal-proximal cavities has been calculated. The primary outcome will be restoration longevity, which will be clinically assessed after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by two examiners. The duration of the dental treatment and the cost of all materials used will be considered when estimating the cost-efficacy of each treatment. Individual discomfort will be measured after each dental procedure using the Facial Scale of Wong-Baker.Ethics and disseminationThis clinical trial was approved by the local ethics committee from the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of São Paulo (registration no. 1.556.018). Participants will be included after their legal guardians have signed an informed consent form containing detailed information about the research.Trial registration number www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02562456; Pre-results.

No abstract