It is not uncommon that oral healthcare professionals and researchers interchange the use of the terms minimum/minimal intervention and minimally invasive dentistry. However, these terms apply to two different, but related, concepts. Minimum intervention dentistry, to be more appropriately addressed in this paper as minimum intervention oral care (MIOC), is an oral healthcare delivery framework that encompasses four interlinked clinical domains. These domains are: identifying disease -detection, longitudinal risk/susceptibility assessment, investigation, diagnosis and the development of a personalized care plan; prevention of lesions/control of diseasepatient behaviour management, non-invasive remineralisation of the enamel and dentine, biofilm and diet control, micro-invasive sealants and infiltration techniques to arrest and reverse incipient lesions; minimally invasive operative procedures including selective carious dentine removal, the "5Rs" management of the tooth-restoration complex (review, refurbish, re-seal, repair and replace) amongst other restorative interventions; and tailored recall/review/re-assessment consultations. This framework includes that minimally invasive operative dentistry (MID), that although a critical operative clinical domain, should be viewed as one of the pillars of minimum intervention oral healthcare (MIOC), applied across all disciplines of restorative dentistry, not just caries management. The aim of this review is to clarify these differences and emphasize the importance of minimally invasive operative dentistry (MID) within the context of minimum intervention oral care (MIOC). MIOC is applicable to all disciplines within restorative dentistry, including clinical caries management.

Objective: Traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) affect the aesthetics and function of primary teeth and can cause sequelae in their permanent successors. This study assessed the distribution of TDIs and sequelae in the primary dentition and the respective permanent dentition in children treated at the Dental Trauma Centre in Brazil. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted by collecting data from 256 dental records over 7 years. Descriptive statistical analyses and the Fisher exact test were used (p=0.05). Results: Sixty-two patients presented with trauma in the deciduous teeth. TDIs were observed mostly in boys (64.50%) and in the 2 to 4-year age group (44.10%); most injuries occurred from fall from the child's own height (40.30%) and at home (71.20%). The most common type of trauma was subluxation (22.90%). The most prevalent clinical and radiographic sequelae were mobility (45.60%) and periapical lesion (31.80%), respectively. Regarding the permanent dentition, the most frequent sequela was hypomineralization (33.30%). Conclusion: According to this study, TDIs in deciduous teeth made up 29.24% of all the cases in the Dental Trauma Program. The major type of trauma in children was subluxation, with sequelae in both dentitions. Follow-up after trauma is important to the maintenance of primary dentition and to prevent and treat possible sequelae in the permanent dentition.

Background: Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) is considered a useful technique to reduce anxiety in children and adolescents in medical settings.Aim: To investigate whether the use of AAT helps to reduce anxiety during dental care in children and adolescents.Design: Systematic review that included randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials with children up to 18-years of age undergoing dental appointments.The databases Embase, Cochrane, Pubmed/Medline, LILACS, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched including gray literature. Random-effects meta-analyses using mean difference (MD) and narrative synthesis (vote counting) were implemented. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 for randomized clinical trials. The certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE.Results: A total of 1103 references were identified, and after a two-phase selection, three studies were included. Anxiety, behavior, and pain were the outcomes.A meta-analysis with 146 participants was performed for anxiety at three time points: before treatment (MD −0.40, CI: −1.06 to 0.26; I 2 = 0%; p = .24), during treatment (MD −3.64, CI: −11.18 to 3.91; I 2 = 94%; p = .34), and after treatment (MD −5.97, CI: −17.08 to 5.14; I 2 = 98% p = .29). There was no difference during dental treatment with or without ATT (dogs), as well as for narrative analysis for any outcome. The risk of bias was high mainly because of the randomization and outcome measurement. Conclusion:There is no evidence to support or refute that the presence of AAT during dental care can help reduce anxiety in children (5-11 years). Studies with larger samples are suggested. Protocol registration (CRD42021293593).