The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vivo effectiveness of laser fluorescence compared to visual inspection and radiography for the detection of occlusal caries in primary teeth. Fifty sites from 30 molars in 29 patients were selected and evaluated under standardized conditions by 2 previously trained examiners according to the 3 diagnostic methods. Histological examination served as gold standard after exfoliation or extraction. Values obtained for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.60, 0.90 and 0.73 for laser fluorescence, 0.82, 0.85 and 0.84 for visual inspection and 0.62, 0.73 and 0.67 for radiography, respectively. Considering only dentinal caries, values were 0.73, 0.95 and 0.90 for laser fluorescence, 0.61, 1.00 and 0.90 for visual inspection and 0.96, 0.81 and 0.85 for radiography, respectively. We conclude that for the detection of occlusal caries in primary molars laser fluorescence presents a similar accuracy when compared to visual inspection and radiography, although visual inspection showed better values for sensitivities for both enamel and dentin lesions.

No abstract

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

No abstract