Atraumatic vs conventional restorative treatment for root caries lesions in older patients: Meta‐ and trial sequential analysis

Abstract

Objectives We aimed to appraise the comparative clinical efficacy of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) versus conventional restorative treatment (CT) using a meta‐analysis, and assessed the robustness of evidence by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Background Due to its simplified clinical approach, ART may be advantageous over CT for restoration of root caries lesions in institutionalised older patients. Methods Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL) were screened, and hand searches and cross‐referencing performed to identify randomised controlled trials reporting on survival of ART vs CT for restoration of root caries in older patients. Trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. ART and CT were compared using fixed‐ or random‐effects pairwise meta‐analysis for per‐protocol (PP), intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and best‐case scenarios. TSA was used to control for risk of random errors. Results A total of 235 studies were identified, and three trials involving 130 patients (463 restorations) were included. Risk of bias was high or moderate in all but one trial. ART was associated with a significantly increased risk of failure (OR [95% CI] 2.06 [1.06/4.00]) in PP‐ but not in ITT analysis (1.36 [0.92/2.02]). Analyses for best‐case scenarios found great uncertainty introduced by attrition. No firm evidence was reached according to TSA. Conclusions For restoration of root caries, there is insufficient data to clearly rule out whether differences between ART and CT exist. Limited available data indicate there might be an increased risk of failure for ART.

Perspective and practice of root caries management: a multicountry study – Part I

“…As current literature shows, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any material and/or approach for routine clinical use in the restoration of root caries. [ 19 25 ] Therefore, it seems prudent, for the time being, to recommend a follow-up period of at least 6 months. Two-third of dentists in the UK followed up their patients out of which 80% prefer the 6-month follow-up period.…”

Root canal morphology of the mandibular second premolar: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The I 2 statistic was calculated to describe the percentage of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance [ 53 ]. Fixed or random-effects meta-analysis was performed depending on heterogeneity (I 2 < 35%: fixed-effects; I 2 > 35%: random-effect) [ 54 , 55 ]. The primary measures of effect between different root canal configurations, patient’ sex and geographic reasons were Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for studies using dichotomous outcome data.…”

Manejo de cárie radicular: um guia para o dentista brasileiro baseado na tradução e adaptação cultural do consenso internacional/ORCA E EFCD

“…Existem desafios com relação a taxa de falha das restaurações 29 . Entre eles, encontram--se dificuldades durante o procedimento restaurador como o controle da umidade, acesso à cavidade, adesão a dois tipos de substratos diferentes, frequente localização subgengival e proximal, forma da cavidade que nem sempre é retentiva, adaptação marginal ruim, e proximidade com a polpa 3,16,30,31 . Estudos clínicos que comparam efetividade entre diferentes formas de abordagem para paralisação de LCRs a longo prazo ainda são escassos, principalmente em relação às intervenções restauradoras 3,20 .…”