Falk Schwendicke

Socioeconomic Inequality and Caries A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dental caries is the most prevalent disease worldwide, with the majority of caries lesions being concentrated in few, often disadvantaged social groups. We aimed to systematically assess current evidence for the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and caries. We included studies investigating the association between social position (determined by own or parental educational or occupational background, or income) and caries prevalence, experience, or incidence. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Reported differences between the lowest and highest SEP were assessed and data not missing at random imputed. Random-effects inverse-generic meta-analyses were performed, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses were used to control for possible confounding. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plot analysis and the Egger test. From 5539 screened records, 155 studies with mostly low or moderate quality evaluating a total of 329,798 individuals were included. Studies used various designs, SEP measures, and outcome parameters. Eighty-three studies found at least one measure of caries to be significantly higher in low-SEP compared with high-SEP individuals, while only 3 studies found the opposite. The odds of having any caries lesions or caries experience (decayed missing filled teeth [DMFT]/dmft > 0) were significantly greater in those with low own or parental educational or occupational background or income (between odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.21 [1.03–1.41] and 1.48 [1.34–1.63]. The association between low educational background and having DMFT/dmft > 0 was significantly increased in highly developed countries (R2 = 1.32 [0.53–2.13]. Publication bias was present but did not significantly affect our estimates. Due to risk of bias in included studies, the available evidence was graded as low or very low. Low SEP is associated with a higher risk of having caries lesions or experience. This association might be stronger in developed countries. Established diagnostic and treatment concepts might not account for the unequal distribution of caries (registered with PROSPERO [CRD42013005947]).

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal

The International Caries Consensus Collaboration undertook a consensus process and here presents clinical recommendations for carious tissue removal and managing cavitated carious lesions, including restoration, based on texture of demineralized dentine. Dentists should manage the disease dental caries and control activity of existing cavitated lesions to preserve hard tissues and retain teeth long-term. Entering the restorative cycle should be avoided as far as possible. Controlling the disease in cavitated carious lesions should be attempted using methods which are aimed at biofilm removal or control first. Only when cavitated carious lesions either are noncleansable or can no longer be sealed are restorative interventions indicated. When a restoration is indicated, the priorities are as follows: preserving healthy and remineralizable tissue, achieving a restorative seal, maintaining pulpal health, and maximizing restoration success. Carious tissue is removed purely to create conditions for long-lasting restorations. Bacterially contaminated or demineralized tissues close to the pulp do not need to be removed. In deeper lesions in teeth with sensible (vital) pulps, preserving pulpal health should be prioritized, while in shallow or moderately deep lesions, restoration longevity becomes more important. For teeth with shallow or moderately deep cavitated lesions, carious tissue removal is performed according to selective removal to firm dentine. In deep cavitated lesions in primary or permanent teeth, selective removal to soft dentine should be performed, although in permanent teeth, stepwise removal is an option. The evidence and, therefore, these recommendations support less invasive carious lesion management, delaying entry to, and slowing down, the restorative cycle by preserving tooth tissue and retaining teeth long-term.

Attitudes and Behaviour regarding Deep Dentin Caries Removal: A Survey among German Dentists

Incomplete removal of deep caries has been shown to reduce the risks of pulp exposure and postoperative pulpal complications. It is therefore of interest whether dentists perform one- or two-step incomplete excavation, and which criteria and methods they use to assess and provide removal of deep caries. This study investigated the attitudes and behaviour of dentists in northern Germany using a new, validated questionnaire. The survey included 2,346 practitioners, 821 (35%) of whom responded. Demographic and sensitivity analysis did not indicate selection bias. 50% of dentists considered only complete excavation, even if pulp exposure was likely. If caries was to be removed incompletely, 77% considered two-step excavation. Hardness was the most important criterion to assess excavation. To treat an exposed pulp, 75% of dentists considered direct capping, 70% refused incomplete excavation fearing caries progression or pulp damage, and 59% reported to prefer more invasive treatment to facilitate restoration longevity. Over 50% recognised an influence of professional regulations on their treatment decisions. There was a moderate correlation between attitudes and behaviour of dentists, with dentists who suspected residual caries to be harmful rejecting incomplete excavation and vice versa. Cluster analysis identified two groups of dentists with opposite attitudes and behaviour, independently from dentists age or gender. In conclusion, the majority of surveyed dentists was sceptical about leaving caries during excavation and does not practice incomplete caries removal. Therefore, benefits of partial excavation should be highlighted in under- and postgraduate education and regulatory incentives modified to promote minimally invasive techniques.

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology

Variation in the terminology used to describe clinical management of carious lesions has contributed to a lack of clarity in the scientific literature and beyond. In this article, the International Caries Consensus Collaboration presents 1) issues around terminology, a scoping review of current words used in the literature for caries removal techniques, and 2) agreed terms and definitions, explaining how these were decided. Dental caries is the name of the disease, and the carious lesion is the consequence and manifestation of the disease—the signs or symptoms of the disease. The term dental caries management should be limited to situations involving control of the disease through preventive and noninvasive means at a patient level, whereas carious lesion management controls the disease symptoms at the tooth level. While it is not possible to directly relate the visual appearance of carious lesions’ clinical manifestations to the histopathology, we have based the terminology around the clinical consequences of disease (soft, leathery, firm, and hard dentine). Approaches to carious tissue removal are defined: 1) selective removal of carious tissue—including selective removal to soft dentine and selective removal to firm dentine; 2) stepwise removal—including stage 1, selective removal to soft dentine, and stage 2, selective removal to firm dentine 6 to 12 mo later; and 3) nonselective removal to hard dentine—formerly known as complete caries removal (technique no longer recommended). Adoption of these terms, around managing dental caries and its sequelae, will facilitate improved understanding and communication among researchers and within dental educators and the wider clinical dentistry community.

Probiotics for managing caries and periodontitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES Probiotics might be beneficial to prevent or treat caries, gingivitis or periodontitis. We aimed to appraise trials assessing probiotics for managing caries and periodontal disease. DATA We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of probiotics versus (placebo) control with regards to Streptococcus mutans [SM], lactobacilli [LB], periodontal pathogens numbers, gingivitis, oral hygiene, caries incidence/experience increment, or periodontitis. Meta-analysis and trial-sequential-analysis were performed. SOURCES Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Central) were screened. STUDY SELECTION 50 studies (3247 participants) were included. Studies were mainly performed in children and used lactobacilli (45); bifidobacteria (12) or other genus (3). Probiotics significantly increased the chance of reducing SM (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.23/3.92) or LB (OR: 2.84; 1.34/6.03)<10(4)CFU/ml. Such reduction was confirmed for SM counts (standardized mean differences: -1.18, 95% CI: -1.64/-0.72), but not LB (SMD: 0.33; 0.15/0.52). For periodontal pathogens, no significant difference was found. Probiotics significantly reduced bleeding-on-probing (SMD: -1.15; -1.68/-0.62) and gingival index (SMD: -0.86; -1.52/-0.20), but not plaque index (SMD: -0.34; -0.89/0.21). Caries incidence was not significantly reduced (OR: 0.60; 0.35/1.04), neither was caries experience (SMD: -0.26; -0.55/0.03) or CAL (SMD: -0.46; -0.84/0.08). In contrast, probing-pocket depths (SMD: -0.86; -1.55/-0.17) were significantly reduced. Data was quantitatively insufficient for conclusive findings, and risk of bias was high. CONCLUSION Current evidence is insufficient for recommending probiotics for managing dental caries, but supportive towards managing gingivitis or periodontitis. Future studies should only record bacterial numbers alongside accepted disease markers or indicators. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Probiotic therapy could be used for managing periodontal diseases. For caries, further studies should ascertain both efficacy and safety.

Direct pulp capping after a carious exposure versus root canal treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION Excavation of deep caries often leads to pulpal exposure even in teeth with sensible, nonsymptomatic pulps. Although direct pulp capping (DPC) aims to maintain pulpal health, it frequently requires follow-up treatments like root canal treatment (RCT), which could have been performed immediately after the exposure, with possibly improved outcomes. We quantified and compared the long-term cost-effectiveness of both strategies. METHODS A Markov model was constructed following a molar with an occlusally located exposure of a sensible, nonsymptomatic pulp in a 20-year-old male patient over his lifetime. Transition probabilities or hazard functions were estimated based on systematically and nonsystematically assessed literature. Costs were estimated based on German health care, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed using Monte Carlo microsimulations. RESULTS Despite requiring follow-up treatments significantly earlier, teeth treated by DPC were retained for long periods of time (52 years) at significantly reduced lifetime costs (545 vs 701 Euro) compared with teeth treated by RCT. For teeth with proximal instead of occlusal exposures or teeth in patients >50 years of age, this cost-effectiveness ranking was reversed. Although sensitivity analyses found substantial uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of both strategies, DPC was usually found to be less costly than RCT. CONCLUSIONS We found both DPC and RCT suitable to treat exposed vital, nonsymptomatic pulps. DPC was more cost-effective in younger patients and for occlusal exposure sites, whereas RCT was more effective in older patients or teeth with proximal exposures. These findings might change depending on the health care system and underlying literature-based probabilities.

Costs and effectiveness of treatment alternatives for proximal caries lesions.

Objectives Invasive therapy of proximal caries lesions initiates a cascade of re-treatment cycles with increasing loss of dental hard tissue. Non- and micro-invasive treatment aim at delaying this cascade and may thus reduce both the health and economic burden of such lesions. This study compared the costs and effectiveness of alternative treatments of proximal caries lesions. Methods A Markov-process model was used to simulate the events following the treatment of a proximal posterior lesion (E2/D1) in a 20-year-old patient in Germany. We compared three interventions (non-invasive; micro-invasive using resin infiltration; invasive using composite restoration). We calculated the risk of complications of initial and possible follow-up treatments and modelled time-dependent non-linear transition probabilities. Costs were calculated based on item-fee catalogues in Germany. Monte-Carlo-microsimulations were performed to compare cost-effectiveness of non- versus micro-invasive treatment and to analyse lifetime costs of all three treatments. Results Micro-invasive treatment was both more costly and more effective than non-invasive therapy, with ceiling-value-thresholds for willingness-to-pay between 16.73 € for E2 and 1.57 € for D1 lesions. Invasive treatment was the most costly strategy. Calculated costs and effectiveness were sensitive to lesion stage, patient’s age, discounting rate and assumed initial treatment costs. Conclusions Non- and micro-invasive treatments have lower long-term costs than invasive therapy of proximal lesions. Micro-invasive therapy had the highest cost-effectiveness for treating D1 lesions in young patients. Decision makers with a willingness-to-pay over 16.73 € and 1.57 € for E2 and D1 lesions, respectively, will find micro-invasive treatment more cost-effective than non-invasive therapy.

Directly Placed Restorative Materials Review and Network Meta-analysis

For restoring cavitated dental lesions, whether carious or not, a large number of material combinations are available. We aimed to systematically review and synthesize data of comparative dental restorative trials. A systematic review was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2015 were included that compared the survival of ≥2 restorative and/or adhesive materials (i.e., no need for restorative reintervention). Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed, with separate evaluations for cervical cavitated lesions and load-bearing posterior cavitated lesions in permanent and primary teeth. A total of 11,070 restorations (5,330 cervical, 5,740 load bearing) had been placed in 3,633 patients in the included trials. Thirty-six trials investigated restoration of cervical lesions (all in permanent teeth) and 36 of load-bearing lesions (8 in primary and 28 in permanent teeth). Resin-modified glass ionomer cements had the highest chance of survival in cervical cavitated lesions; composites or compomers placed via 2-step self-etch and 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesives were ranked next. Restorations placed with 2-step etch-and-rinse or 1-step self-etch adhesives performed worst. For load-bearing restorations, conventional composites had the highest probability of survival, while siloranes were found least suitable. Ambiguity remains regarding which adhesive strategy to use in load-bearing cavitated lesions. Most studies showed high risk of bias, and several comparisons were prone for publication bias. If prioritized for survival, resin-modified glass ionomer cements might be recommended to restore cervical lesions. For load-bearing ones, conventional or bulk fill composites seem most suitable. The available evidence is quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient for further recommendations, especially with regard to adhesive strategies in posterior load-bearing situations. Moreover, different material classifications might yield different findings on the same materials. Future trials should aim for sufficient power, longer follow-up times, and high internal validity to prove or refute differences between certain material combinations. An agreed material classification for future syntheses is desirable.

Radiographic caries detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES This systematic review aimed at evaluating the accuracy of radiographic caries detection for different lesions at different locations. DATA Studies reporting on the accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of radiographic detection of natural primary caries lesions under clinical or in vitro conditions were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were performed separately for occlusal and proximal lesions, with further discrimination between any kind of lesions, dentine lesions, and cavitated lesions. SOURCES Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central) and grey literature were systematically searched, complemented by cross-referencing from bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION From 947 identified articles, 442 were analyzed full-text. 117 studies (13,375 teeth, 19,108 surfaces) were included, the majority of them reporting on permanent teeth and having high risk of bias. The detection of any kind (i.e. also initial) lesions had low sensitivities (pooled DOR [95% CI]: 0.24 [0.21/0.26] to 0.42 [0.31/0.34]), but moderate to high specificities (0.70 [0.76/0.84] to 0.97 [0.95/0.98]). For dentine lesions, sensitivities were higher (from 0.36 [0.24/0.49] for proximal to 0.56 [0.53/0.59] for occlusal lesions), and specificities ranged between 0.87 [0.85/0.89] and 0.95 [0.94/0.96]. No studies reported on cavitated occlusal lesions, whilst for cavitated proximal lesions, sensitivities increased above 0.60, whilst sensitivities remained high (above 0.90). CONCLUSIONS Radiographic caries detection is highly accurate for cavitated proximal lesions, and seems also suitable to detect dentine caries lesions. For detecting initial lesions, more sensitive methods could be considered in population with high caries risk and prevalence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Radiographic caries detection is especially suitable for detecting more advanced caries lesions, and has limited risks for false positive diagnoses. For groups with high caries risk and prevalence, alternative detection methods with higher sensitivity for initial lesions might be considered.

Treating Pit-and-Fissure Caries A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

For shallow or moderately deep pit-and-fissure lesions, various treatment options are available: (1) noninvasive treatments (e.g., fluoride application, antibacterial treatments, oral hygiene advice) avoid any dental hard tissue removal; (2) microinvasive treatments (e.g., sealing) remove only a few micrometers of hard tissues by etching; and minimally invasive methods (e.g., “preventive” resin/sealant restoration) remove carious dentin but avoid sacrificing sound tissues. We aimed at systematically reviewing and comparing these strategies for treating pit-and-fissure lesions in permanent teeth using network meta-analysis. Randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials investigating shallow or moderately deep primary caries lesions in fissured or pitted surfaces were included. We compared the risk of requiring invasive treatments or any retreatments in noninvasive, microinvasive, and minimally invasive treated lesions; untreated lesions were used as controls. Five electronic databases were systematically screened up to September 2013 and cross-referencing performed. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Certainty of estimates was evaluated via GRADE criteria. From a total of 2,214 identified records, 14 studies representing 1,440 patients with 3,551 treated lesions were included. Pairwise meta-analysis found microinvasive and minimally invasive treated lesions to require less invasive retreatments than control lesions (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 0.13 [0.07 to 0.26], 0.13 [0.03 to 0.50], respectively), whereas the estimate for noninvasively treated lesions remained nonsignificant (0.64 [0.39 to 1.06]). These findings were reflected in the strategy ranking stemming from network meta-analysis (first, minimally invasive; second, microinvasive; third, noninvasive). However, microinvasive treatment required significantly more total retreatments (including resealing) than minimally or noninvasive treatments. Due to limited study quality, the evidence was graded as low or very low. Clinical treatment decisions should consider the long-term sequelae and costs stemming from different therapies as well as their subjective impact on the patient. Available treatment options seem suitable for treating shallow or moderately deep pit-and-fissure lesions in permanent teeth; further conclusions are not possible.