WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children.

David Ricketts, Thomas Lamont, Nicola Pt Innes, Edwina Kidd, Janet E Clarkson
{"title":"WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children.","authors":"David Ricketts, Thomas Lamont, Nicola Pt Innes, Edwina Kidd, Janet E Clarkson","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":81248,"journal":{"name":"Family practice news","volume":"39 1","pages":"CD003808"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub4","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice news","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

Objectives: To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.

Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

Selection criteria: Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.

Main results: In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I2 = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.

Authors' conclusions: Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
撤回:成人和儿童龋齿的手术治疗。
背景:传统上,龋齿的治疗包括在充填前去除所有软质脱矿的牙本质。然而,由于担心从牙齿上移除所有软质牙本质可能产生的不利影响,完全去除龋的好处一直受到质疑。三组研究也通过使用三种不同的技术将蛀牙密封到牙齿中,挑战了完全去除蛀牙的理论。第一种技术是在相隔几个月的两次就诊中分阶段去除龋齿,使牙髓有时间形成修复的牙本质(逐步挖掘技术)。第二种技术去除部分牙本质龋齿并将剩余的龋齿永久地密封在牙齿中(部分龋齿去除),第三种技术在密封或修复之前不去除牙本质龋齿(不去除牙本质龋齿)。这是对2006年首次发表的Cochrane综述的更新。目的:评价分步、部分或不拔除牙槽与完全拔除牙槽治疗未修复的乳牙和恒牙牙槽的效果。检索方法:检索以下电子数据库:Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册(至2012年12月12日),Cochrane中央对照试验注册(中央)(Cochrane图书馆2012年第11期),MEDLINE通过OVID(1946年至2012年12月12日)和EMBASE通过OVID(1980年至2012年12月12日)。对语言或出版日期没有限制。选择标准:包括平行组、裂口随机对照试验和准随机对照试验,比较未修复的乳牙和恒牙部分或不切除牙槽与完全切除牙槽。数据收集和分析:三位综述作者独立提取三份数据,并评估偏倚风险。尽可能联系试验作者获取信息。我们使用了Cochrane协作网制定的标准方法程序。主要结果:在这篇更新的综述中,纳入了4项新的试验,使总数达到8项试验,934名参与者和1372颗牙齿。有三个比较:逐步除龋与完成一期除龋(四项试验);部分龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除(三次试验)相比,无牙本质龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除(两次试验)相比。(一项三臂试验比较了完全除龋与逐步除龋和部分除龋。)四项研究调查了乳牙,三项研究调查了恒牙,一项研究同时调查了乳牙和恒牙。所有的试验都被评估为高偏倚风险,尽管新的试验显示了尽量减少偏倚的证据。基于中等质量的证据,与完全除龋相比,逐步除龋导致牙髓暴露发生率降低56%(风险比(RR) 0.44, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.33至0.60,P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%),无异质性。在这四项研究中,完全除龋组的平均牙髓暴露发生率为34.7%,逐步除龋组的平均牙髓暴露发生率为15.4%。也有中等质量的证据表明,牙髓病的体征和症状的结果没有差异(RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39至1.58,P = 0.50, I2 = 0%)。与完全龋齿相比,部分龋齿使牙髓暴露的发生率降低了77% (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08至0.69,P = 0.009, I2 = 0%),这也是基于中等质量的证据,没有证据异质性。在这两项研究中,完全除龋组的平均牙髓暴露率为21.9%,部分除龋组的平均牙髓暴露率为5%。没有足够的证据来确定牙髓病的体征和症状是否存在差异(RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 ~ 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%,低质量证据)或修复失败(一项研究显示两组没有差异,另一项研究显示两组没有失败,极低质量证据)。在两项完全不同的研究中,没有进行牙本质龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除进行比较。有一些中度证据表明,在一项研究中,这些技术在牙髓疾病的体征和症状的结果以及有利于不去除牙本质龋齿的修复失败风险降低方面没有差异,在另一项准随机研究中,两组均没有牙髓疾病或修复失败的实例。由于两项研究之间存在重大临床差异,因此未对这两项研究进行meta分析。作者的结论是:逐步和部分开挖减少了无症状、重要、龋齿的乳牙和恒牙的牙髓暴露发生率。因此,这些技术在治疗牙本质龋齿方面比完全去除龋齿具有临床优势。 传统上,龋齿的治疗包括在充填前去除所有软质脱矿的牙本质。然而,由于担心从牙齿上移除所有软质牙本质可能产生的不利影响,完全去除龋的好处一直受到质疑。三组研究也通过使用三种不同的技术将蛀牙密封到牙齿中,挑战了完全去除蛀牙的理论。第一种技术是在相隔几个月的两次就诊中分阶段去除龋齿,使牙髓有时间形成修复的牙本质(逐步挖掘技术)。第二种技术去除部分牙本质龋齿并将剩余的龋齿永久地密封在牙齿中(部分龋齿去除),第三种技术在密封或修复之前不去除牙本质龋齿(不去除牙本质龋齿)。这是对2006年首次发表的Cochrane综述的更新。目的比较逐步、部分或不拔除牙槽与完全拔除牙槽在治疗未修复的乳牙和恒牙牙槽中的效果。检索方法:检索以下电子数据库:Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册(至2012年12月12日),Cochrane中央对照试验注册(中央)(Cochrane图书馆2012年第11期),MEDLINE通过OVID(1946年至2012年12月12日)和EMBASE通过OVID(1980年至2012年12月12日)。对语言或出版日期没有限制。选择标准:包括平行组、裂口随机对照试验和准随机对照试验,比较未修复的乳牙和恒牙部分或不切除牙槽与完全切除牙槽的逐步对照。数据收集和分析三位综述作者独立提取三份数据并评估偏倚风险。尽可能联系试验作者获取信息。我们使用了Cochrane协作网制定的标准方法程序。在这篇更新的综述中,纳入了4项新的试验,使总数达到8项试验,934名受试者和1372颗牙齿。有三个比较:逐步除龋与完成一期除龋(四项试验);部分龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除(三次试验)相比,无牙本质龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除(两次试验)相比。(一项三臂试验比较了完全除龋与逐步除龋和部分除龋。)四项研究调查了乳牙,三项研究调查了恒牙,一项研究同时调查了乳牙和恒牙。所有的试验都被评估为高偏倚风险,尽管新的试验显示了尽量减少偏倚的证据。基于中等质量的证据,与完全除龋相比,逐步除龋导致牙髓暴露发生率降低56%(风险比(RR) 0.44, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.33至0.60,P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%),无异质性。在这四项研究中,完全除龋组的平均牙髓暴露发生率为34.7%,逐步除龋组的平均牙髓暴露发生率为15.4%。也有中等质量的证据表明,牙髓病的体征和症状的结果没有差异(RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39至1.58,P = 0.50, I2 = 0%)。与完全龋齿相比,部分龋齿使牙髓暴露的发生率降低了77% (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08至0.69,P = 0.009, I2 = 0%),这也是基于中等质量的证据,没有证据异质性。在这两项研究中,完全除龋组的平均牙髓暴露率为21.9%,部分除龋组的平均牙髓暴露率为5%。没有足够的证据来确定牙髓病的体征和症状是否存在差异(RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 ~ 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%,低质量证据)或修复失败(一项研究显示两组没有差异,另一项研究显示两组没有失败,极低质量证据)。在两项完全不同的研究中,没有进行牙本质龋齿去除与完全龋齿去除进行比较。有一些中度证据表明,在一项研究中,这些技术在牙髓疾病的体征和症状的结果以及有利于不去除牙本质龋齿的修复失败风险降低方面没有差异,在另一项准随机研究中,两组均没有牙髓疾病或修复失败的实例。由于两项研究之间存在重大临床差异,因此未对这两项研究进行meta分析。结论在无症状、生牙、蛀牙的乳牙和恒牙中,分步和部分开挖可减少牙髓外露的发生率。因此,这些技术在治疗牙本质龋齿方面比完全去除龋齿具有临床优势。 没有证据表明逐步挖牙和完全挖牙在牙髓疾病的体征和症状上有差异,也没有足够的证据来确定部分挖牙和完全挖牙在牙髓疾病的体征和症状上是否有差异。当进行部分龋齿清除时,也没有足够的证据来确定是否存在修复失败风险的差异。无牙本质龋齿去除研究调查恒牙有类似的结果,修复失败没有差异。另一项对乳牙进行的无牙本质龋齿去除研究显示,支持干预的修复失败在统计学上有显著差异。由于大多数纳入研究的随访时间较短,且存在较高的偏倚风险,因此仍需要进一步的高质量、长期的临床试验来评估最有效的干预措施。然而,应该指出的是,在这种性质的研究中,完全消除偏倚风险不一定是可能的。未来的研究还应调查以患者为中心的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Outcome of Total Surgical Debridement of Covid Associated Rhino-Orbito-Cerebral Mucormycosis Based on a New Surgical Staging System: A Cohort Study. Invading the dynamics of economic growth and CO2 emission: panel data error correction model (ECM) approach. WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children. Newly labeled sunscreens surface on shelves Fake marijuana prompting rush of ED visits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1