Cargando…

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

BACKGROUND: Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delgado, António H. S., Jamal, Hasan, Young, Anne, Ashley, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7816513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33468122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01395-5
_version_ 1783638457468321792
author Delgado, António H. S.
Jamal, Hasan
Young, Anne
Ashley, Paul
author_facet Delgado, António H. S.
Jamal, Hasan
Young, Anne
Ashley, Paul
author_sort Delgado, António H. S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies. METHODS: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: 700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low. CONCLUSION: Few studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7816513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78165132021-01-22 Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie? Delgado, António H. S. Jamal, Hasan Young, Anne Ashley, Paul BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Adhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies. METHODS: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: 700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low. CONCLUSION: Few studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary. BioMed Central 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7816513/ /pubmed/33468122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01395-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Delgado, António H. S.
Jamal, Hasan
Young, Anne
Ashley, Paul
Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title_full Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title_fullStr Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title_full_unstemmed Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title_short Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
title_sort scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7816513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33468122
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01395-5
work_keys_str_mv AT delgadoantoniohs scopingreviewoftrialsevaluatingadhesivestrategiesinpediatricdentistrywheredosimplifiedstrategieslie
AT jamalhasan scopingreviewoftrialsevaluatingadhesivestrategiesinpediatricdentistrywheredosimplifiedstrategieslie
AT younganne scopingreviewoftrialsevaluatingadhesivestrategiesinpediatricdentistrywheredosimplifiedstrategieslie
AT ashleypaul scopingreviewoftrialsevaluatingadhesivestrategiesinpediatricdentistrywheredosimplifiedstrategieslie