METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed by 2 independent reviewers using a customized search strategy in major Endodontic journals through Scopus until November 2019. Studies investigating root and canal anatomy were included. The selected publications were divided into 7 categories according to the study design: micro-computed tomography (microCT) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) experimental studies (extracted teeth), CBCT and 2D clinical studies, CBCT and 2D case reports in addition to others (i.e. staining and clearing method and root sectioning). The selected studies were evaluated according to three domains: 1) Criteria for study sample selection; 2) Criteria for methodological procedures and 3) Criteria for detection and evaluation.
RESULTS: After the removal of duplicated and irrelevant papers, 137 articles were included. Results showed that microCT studies reported accurately the tooth type, number of teeth, classifications used, qualitative and/or quantitative analysis (if required) and the evaluation process. However, sample size calculation, calibration, and reproducibility were not reported in the majority of microCT studies. CBCT clinical studies presented information for the type of study, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of patients, tooth type, and number of teeth. However, the majority did not report sample size calculation and calibration of examiners. Radiographic exposure descriptions and classifications used were not reported adequately in CBCT and 2D case reports. Sample size calculation, calibration and reproducibility were not reported in staining and clearing method.
CONCLUSION: Despite accurate presentation of certain items, there is considerable inconsistent reporting of root and canal morphology regardless of the type of study and experimental procedure used. The PROUD checklist protocol presented in this systematic review aims to provide an accurate description of root canal anatomy in experimental, clinical, and case report publications.
METHODS: The survey was conducted using physical and online presentation modes in two phases. Phase 1; PowerPoint presentation (PPT), describing the most used classification system (Vertucci et al. 1974) and its supplementary types and Ahmed et al. (2017) classification. A single presenter delivered the PPT to participants, using either a projector in an auditorium/seminar hall (face-to-face) or an online platform (zoom meeting software). Phase 2 involved determining the students' responses. A questionnaire was distributed amongst the participants after the lecture and collected for analysis. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the data statistically, and the significance level was set at 0.05 (p
METHODS: A search for relevant articles published from inception until May 2020 was performed using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google scholar and journal databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adopted for the conduct of the systematic review. Using RevMan 5.3 software, the most pertinent data were extracted and pooled for quantitative analysis with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was analyzed by using Cochran Q test and I squared statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 5 studies involving 855 mixed dentition patients with arch length preservation therapy were included in the qualitative analysis. Pooled estimate of the data from two studies revealed 3.14 times higher odds of developing mandibular second molar eruption difficulty due to arch length preservation strategies using lingual holding arch (95% CI; OR 1.10-8.92). There was no heterogeneity found in the analysis. The certainty levels were graded as very low.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that arch length preservation strategies pose a risk for development of mandibular second molar eruption disturbances, but the evidence was of very low quality. Registration number: CRD42019116643.
METHODS: Electronic searches were performed in Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane Library databases. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. The analyses were performed on the clinical outcomes (ie, survival, healing, and root development) of the procedure.
RESULTS: Eleven articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, 6 were prospective cohort studies, and 2 were retrospective cohort studies. The pooled survival and healing rates were 97.3% and 93.0%, respectively. The pooled rates of root lengthening, root thickening, and apical closure were 77.3%, 90.6%, and 79.1%, respectively. However, if 20% radiographic changes were used as a cutoff point, there were only 16.1% root lengthening and 39.8% root thickening.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that RET yielded high survival and healing rates with a good root development rate. However, clinical meaningful root development after RET was unpredictable.
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.
Methods: This cross-sectional study includes a total sample of 95 Malay children of both early (8-9 years) and late (10-11 years) mixed dentition stages. The comparison was between 49 samples treated by RTB and 46 samples treated by RPFM. Both pre- and posttreatment changes were assessed with Holdaway's analysis using the CASSOS software. In each cephalogram, 71 anatomic landmarks were traced. Descriptive and multiple regression analyses were performed for statistical evaluation.
Results: Statistically significant changes were noticed in soft tissue facial angle, subnasale to H-line, skeletal profile convexity, upper lip strain, H-line angle, lower lip to H-line, and inferior sulcus to H-line measurements. Gender disparity was noticed in upper lip strain. Other significant changes were influenced by the type of appliance. However, the mean differences were minute to notice clinically. Age difference did not have any effect on the treatment changes.
Conclusions: RPFM revealed treatment outcome with more protruded upper lip than RTB.