METHODS: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus databases were searched. Additional searching was performed in clinical trial registry, reference lists of systematic reviews, and textbooks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the English language through October 2017 comparing the success of pulpotomies in vital primary molars with a follow-up of at least 6 months were selected. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. MA by random effects model, TSA, and GRADE were performed.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs (n = 474) were included. Two RCTs had low risk of bias. No significant difference was observed between MTA and BD in clinical success at 6 months (risk ratio [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; I2 = 0%). No difference was observed in radiographic success at follow-up of 6 months (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; I2 = 0%), 12 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; I2 = 0%), and 18 months (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15; I2 = 0%). TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for the results of the meta-analytic outcomes on clinical and radiographic success. GRADE assessed the evidence from the MA comparing the effect of MTA and BD in pulpotomy to be of low quality.
CONCLUSION: BD and MTA have similar clinical and radiographic success rates based on limited and low-quality evidence. Future high-quality RCTs between MTA and BD is required to confirm the evidence.
DESIGN: The search was conducted in PubMed, Ebscohost, ProQuest, and Scopus databases till June 2021. Children undergoing pulpotomy therapy in primary molars treated with ferric sulfate (FS) and bioactive endodontic materials were evaluated for clinical and radiographic success. Meta-analysis was performed on a random-effects model to assess the success at 6,12,18, and 24 months. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and FS at 24 months for both clinical [RR0.98 (95%CI 0.15,6.34), I2 = 0%] and radiographic [RR0.74 (95%CI: 0.23,2.43), I2 = 0%] success. At 6 months [RR1.36 (95%CI: 0.10,19.34), I2 = 33%], no difference was observed in the clinical [RR1.00 (95%CI: 0.95,1.05), I2 = 0%] and radiographic success [RR0.99 (95%CI: 0.88,1.11), I2 = 51%] between Biodentine (BD), FS and radiographic success of calcium enriched cement and FS [RR0.25 (95%CI: 0.03, 2.22), I2 = 0%].
CONCLUSION: Amongst bioactive materials, MTA and FS demonstrated equal success rates in both clinical and radiographic outcomes with follow-up periods of up to 24 months. Future, high-quality trials are required to verify the result of the current review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of sealants compared to no sealant or a different sealant in preventing pit and fissure caries on the occlusal surfaces of primary molars in children and to report the adverse effects and the retention of different types of sealants.
SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 11 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. Review authors scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group and split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a sealant with no sealant, or different types of sealants, for the prevention of caries in primary molars, with no restriction on follow-up duration. We included studies in which co-interventions such as oral health preventive measures, oral health education or tooth brushing demonstrations were used, provided that the same adjunct was used with the intervention and comparator. We excluded studies with complex interventions for the prevention of dental caries in primary teeth such as preventive resin restorations, or studies that used sealants in cavitated carious lesions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We presented outcomes for the development of new carious lesions on occlusal surfaces of primary molars as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where studies were similar in clinical and methodological characteristics, we planned to pool effect estimates using a random-effects model where appropriate. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies that randomised 1120 children who ranged in age from 18 months to eight years at the start of the study. One study compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with no sealant (139 tooth pairs in 90 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with no sealant (619 children); two studies compared glass ionomer-based sealant with resin-based sealant (278 tooth pairs in 200 children); two studies compared fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant with resin-based sealant (113 tooth pairs in 69 children); one study compared composite with fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant (40 tooth pairs in 40 children); and one study compared autopolymerised sealant with light polymerised sealant (52 tooth pairs in 52 children). Three studies evaluated the effects of sealants versus no sealant and provided data for our primary outcome. Due to differences in study design such as age of participants and duration of follow-up, we elected not to pool the data. At 24 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in the development of new caries lesions for the fluoride-releasing sealants or no treatment groups (Becker Balagtas odds ratio (BB OR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42; 1 study, 85 children, 255 tooth surfaces). For glass ionomer-based sealants, the evidence was equivocal; one study found insufficient evidence of a difference at follow-up between 12 and 30 months (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 449 children), while another with 12-month follow-up found a large, beneficial effect of sealants (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.15; 107 children). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low, downgrading two levels in total for study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. We included six trials randomising 411 children that directly compared different sealant materials, four of which (221 children) provided data for our primary outcome. Differences in age of the participants and duration of follow-up precluded pooling of the data. The incidence of development of new caries lesions was typically low across the different sealant types evaluated. We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low or very low for the outcome of caries incidence. Only one study assessed and reported adverse events, the nature of which was gag reflex while placing the sealant material.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the evidence for the comparisons and outcomes in this review was low or very low, reflecting the fragility and uncertainty of the evidence base. The volume of evidence for this review was limited, which typically included small studies where the number of events was low. The majority of studies in this review were of split-mouth design, an efficient study design for this research question; however, there were often shortcomings in the analysis and reporting of results that made synthesising the evidence difficult. An important omission from the included studies was the reporting of adverse events. Given the importance of prevention for maintaining good oral health, there exists an important evidence gap pertaining to the caries-preventive effect and retention of sealants in the primary dentition, which should be addressed through robust RCTs.