Ana Lúcia Vollú1, Gabriella Fernandes Rodrigues2, Roberta Virgílio Rougemount Teixeira3, Lais Rueda Cruz4, Graziela Dos Santos Massa5, Jessica Pronestino de Lima Moreira6, Ronir Raggio Luiz7, Fernanda Barja-Fidalgo8, Andrea Fonseca-Gonçalves9. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: avollu@terra.com.br. 2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: gabi_rodrigues_@live.com. 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: robertarougemont@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: lais.rueda@gmail.com. 5. Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: graziela.smassa@gmail.com. 6. Institute of Public Health Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: jessica@iesc.ufrj.br. 7. Institute of Public Health Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: ronir@iesc.ufrj.br. 8. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: fernanda.barja@odonto.ufrj.br. 9. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: andrea.goncalves@odonto.ufrj.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This clinical trial investigated the efficacy of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) in arresting dentine caries in primary molars of preschoolers. Time required for treatment, adverse effects, parental aesthetic perception, anxiety and oral health related to quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children, 2-5 years old, with active dentine caries lesions on the occlusal surface of primary molars were randomly allocated to test group (SDF) or control group (atraumatic restorative treatment/ART). The dmf-t/DMF-T and ICDAS indexes determined the presence of caries and activity. The main outcome after 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up was assessed by a blind examiner. The time required to perform the treatments was recorded and a facial image scale was applied to assess anxiety before and after treatment. Adverse events and aesthetic perception were assessed through questions addressed to caregivers; and the OHRQoL through the B-ECOHIS questionnaire. RESULTS: In 68 patients that were randomized, the mean number of treated teeth per child was 2.42(1.04) and 2.09(1.18) in the SDF and ART groups (p = 0.074), respectively. The mean difference of arrested lesions between the groups after 12 months was -0,07(0.05; - 0.17-0.30). The time required to treat with SDF was lower than the ART (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of adverse events + aesthetic perception (p = 0.709), and the change in anxiety (p = 0.155). There was a less impact in OHRQoL after ART treatment, but only when the parents' distress subscale was considered (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: SDF requires much less chair-time and have similar results as ART in arresting caries lesion, anxiety, adverse effects, aesthetic perception and quality of life.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This clinical trial investigated the efficacy of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) in arresting dentine caries in primary molars of preschoolers. Time required for treatment, adverse effects, parental aesthetic perception, anxiety and oral health related to quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Children, 2-5 years old, with active dentine caries lesions on the occlusal surface of primary molars were randomly allocated to test group (SDF) or control group (atraumatic restorative treatment/ART). The dmf-t/DMF-T and ICDAS indexes determined the presence of caries and activity. The main outcome after 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up was assessed by a blind examiner. The time required to perform the treatments was recorded and a facial image scale was applied to assess anxiety before and after treatment. Adverse events and aesthetic perception were assessed through questions addressed to caregivers; and the OHRQoL through the B-ECOHIS questionnaire. RESULTS: In 68 patients that were randomized, the mean number of treated teeth per child was 2.42(1.04) and 2.09(1.18) in the SDF and ART groups (p = 0.074), respectively. The mean difference of arrested lesions between the groups after 12 months was -0,07(0.05; - 0.17-0.30). The time required to treat with SDF was lower than the ART (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of adverse events + aesthetic perception (p = 0.709), and the change in anxiety (p = 0.155). There was a less impact in OHRQoL after ART treatment, but only when the parents' distress subscale was considered (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION:SDF requires much less chair-time and have similar results as ART in arresting caries lesion, anxiety, adverse effects, aesthetic perception and quality of life.
Authors: Ryan Richard Ruff; Tamarinda J Barry Godín; Topaz Murray Small; Richard Niederman Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Luciano Zaffarano; Claudia Salerno; Guglielmo Campus; Silvia Cirio; Araxi Balian; Lorena Karanxha; Maria Grazia Cagetti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-09 Impact factor: 4.614