Ferreira Luiza de Almeida Queiroz, Diniz Ivana Márcia Alves, Peixoto Rogéli Tibúrcio Ribeiro da Cunha, Gomes Natália Aparecida, Caneschi Camila de Sousa, Spineli Loukia Maria, Martins Carolina Castro
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Front Oral Health. 2023 Feb 22;4:1110634. doi: 10.3389/froh.2023.1110634. eCollection 2023.
Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions.
We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of and . We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA).
The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.
选择性龋病去除旨在去除深层牙本质病变中的龋坏组织。然而,关于防腐剂和化学机械辅助方法在减少残留龋损病变上细菌载量的价值存在争议。本系统评价解决了两个主要临床问题,以比较在修复牙本质龋损前使用(1)防腐剂或(2)化学机械剂的现有方法的抗菌效果。
我们纳入了随机和非随机对照试验(RCTs/NRCTs)。我们检索了从开始到2021年10月的八个数据库。配对的评审员独立筛选研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。主要结局是牙本质中总细菌数量的减少,而次要结局是[具体细菌名称1]和[具体细菌名称2]数量的减少。我们使用对数尺度下两种干预措施治疗后与基线均值之比作为合适的效应量度。证据的确定性采用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价方法进行评估。
我们纳入了14项RCT和9项NRCT,涉及九种干预措施。无论采用何种方法,基线时的细菌数量与干预后的相似或超过干预后的数量,尤其是在NRCT中。大多数比较的证据尚无定论。在防腐剂中,在RCT中,氯己定(CHX)导致的总细菌数量平均比光动力疗法多1.14倍[95%置信区间(CI):1.08 - 1.21]。在NRCT中,天然剂导致的总细菌数量比CHX多五倍(95% CI:2 - 11)。对于化学机械方法,对照组导致的总细菌数量比Carisolv(SHAA)多八倍(95% CI:4 - 17)。
所有比较的证据确定性都非常低,表明对于牙本质消毒,一种治疗方法是否比另一种更有效存在不确定性。到目前为止,仅去除软龋坏牙本质就足以减少细菌数量。