Branca Heloisa Oliveira1, Anjana Rajendra2, Analia Veitz-Keenan3, Richard Niederman2. 1. Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilbranca@uerj.br. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments. METHODS: Systematic review (CRD42016036963) of controlled clinical trials. Searches were performed in 9 electronic databases, 5 registers of ongoing trials, and reference lists of identified review articles. Two researchers carried out data extraction and quality appraisal independently. The primary outcome was the difference in caries increment (decayed, missing, and filled surfaces or teeth - dmfs or dmft) between SDF and control groups. These differences were pooled as weighted mean differences (WMD) and prevented fractions (PF). RESULTS: Searches yielded 2,366 unique records; 6 reports of 4 trials that randomized 1,118 and analyzed 915 participants were included. Two trials compared SDF to no treatment, 1 compared SDF to placebo and sodium fluoride varnish (FV), and 1 compared SDF to high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC). All studies had at least 1 domain with unclear or high risk of bias. After 24 months of follow-up, in comparison to placebo, no treatment, and FV, SDF applications significantly reduced the development of new dentin caries lesions (placebo or no treatment: WMD = -1.15, PF = 77.5%; FV: WMD = -0.43, PF = 54.0%). GIC was more effective than SDF after 12 months of follow-up but the difference between them was not statistically significant (WMD, dmft: 0.34, PF: -6.09%). CONCLUSION: When applied to caries lesions in primary teeth, SDF compared to no treatment, placebo or FV appears to effectively prevent dental caries in the entire dentition. However, trials specifically designed to assess this outcome are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is effective in preventing new caries lesions in primary teeth when compared to placebo or active treatments. METHODS: Systematic review (CRD42016036963) of controlled clinical trials. Searches were performed in 9 electronic databases, 5 registers of ongoing trials, and reference lists of identified review articles. Two researchers carried out data extraction and quality appraisal independently. The primary outcome was the difference in caries increment (decayed, missing, and filled surfaces or teeth - dmfs or dmft) between SDF and control groups. These differences were pooled as weighted mean differences (WMD) and prevented fractions (PF). RESULTS: Searches yielded 2,366 unique records; 6 reports of 4 trials that randomized 1,118 and analyzed 915 participants were included. Two trials compared SDF to no treatment, 1 compared SDF to placebo and sodium fluoride varnish (FV), and 1 compared SDF to high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC). All studies had at least 1 domain with unclear or high risk of bias. After 24 months of follow-up, in comparison to placebo, no treatment, and FV, SDF applications significantly reduced the development of new dentin caries lesions (placebo or no treatment: WMD = -1.15, PF = 77.5%; FV: WMD = -0.43, PF = 54.0%). GIC was more effective than SDF after 12 months of follow-up but the difference between them was not statistically significant (WMD, dmft: 0.34, PF: -6.09%). CONCLUSION: When applied to caries lesions in primary teeth, SDF compared to no treatment, placebo or FV appears to effectively prevent dental caries in the entire dentition. However, trials specifically designed to assess this outcome are needed.
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jaime Aparecido Cury; Branca Heloisa de Oliveira; Ana Paula Pires dos Santos; Livia Maria Andaló Tenuta Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: C Pushpalatha; K V Bharkhavy; Arshiya Shakir; Dominic Augustine; S V Sowmya; Hammam Ahmed Bahammam; Sarah Ahmed Bahammam; Nassreen Hassan Mohammad Albar; Bassam Zidane; Shankargouda Patil Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Sarah E Raskin; Eric P Tranby; Sharity Ludwig; Ilya Okunev; Julie Frantsve-Hawley; Sean Boynes Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Syed Saad B Qasim; Dena Ali; Abdul Samad Khan; Shafiq Ur Rehman; Abid Iqbal; Jagan Kumar Baskaradoss Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Anjali Kumar; Dana Cernigliaro; Mary E Northridge; Yinxiang Wu; Andrea B Troxel; Joana Cunha-Cruz; Jay Balzer; David M Okuji Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 2.757