Clinic of Preventive and Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Luksos-Daumanto 6, LT, 50106, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Greifswald University, Greifswald, Germany.
J Dent. 2024 Nov;150:105390. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105390. Epub 2024 Oct 5.
to compare two-year clinical success rates of caries management in children (Hall Technique HT, Nonrestorative caries treatment NRCT, Conventional restorations CR), and to evaluate pain perception, behaviour, technique acceptability by patients, parents and dentists.
122, 3-8-year-olds were enrolled in 2-year parallel group randomised controlled trial (CR, n = 52, HT, n = 35, NRCT, n = 35). Caries was recorded using Nyvad criteria to measure clinical success/ failure rates. Child's pain perception (Visual Analogue Scale of Faces), child behaviour (Frankl scale), parents' and dentists' treatment opinions (5-point Likert scale) were assessed. Statistical analysis included Chi-square, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis, Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT).
After two years, with 116 participants, clinical success rates were: CR=60.8 % (n = 31), HT=93.8 % (n = 30), NRCT=42.5 % (n = 14) (p < 0.001). Major/minor failure rates differed: CR=17.6 % (n = 9) / 21.6 % (n = 11); HT=6.2 % (n = 2)/ 0 %, NRCT=33.3 % (n = 11)/ 24.2 % (n = 8), (p < 0.05). When comparing HT to CR, ARR = 0.33; NNT= 3 (95 % CI 0.02 -0.58); NRCT to CR, - no observed benefit from NRCT. More than 70 % of children demonstrated "positive/definitely positive" behaviour during treatment. Pain intensity was "very low/low" in 92.3 % of cases for CR, 88.6 % for HT, and 77.1 % for NRCT . NRCT was "very easy" to perform for 82.9 % of participants, compared to 42.3 % for CR and 17.1 % for HT (p < 0.05). CR were reported to take longer than NRCT and HT (p < 0.05).
Clinical success rates of HT were superior to CR and NRCT. All treatment techniques were well tolerated by children, CR was more time-consuming and HT - technically more difficult to perform.
caries management in primary molars can be successfully performed using minimal intervention, particularly, sealing in caries lesions with Hall technique. NRCT can prevent caries progression when adequate access to mechanical plaque disruption and fluoride is provided. However, occasional fluoride application, and uncontrolled toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste cannot replace restorative procedures.
比较儿童龋齿管理的两年临床成功率(Hall 技术 HT、非修复性龋齿治疗 NRCT、常规修复 CR),并评估患者、家长和牙医对疼痛感知、行为和技术接受度的评价。
122 名 3-8 岁儿童被纳入了为期两年的平行组随机对照试验(CR,n=52;HT,n=35;NRCT,n=35)。使用 Nyvad 标准记录龋齿情况,以衡量临床成功/失败率。通过面部视觉模拟量表评估儿童的疼痛感知,通过 Frankl 量表评估儿童的行为,通过 5 分李克特量表评估家长和牙医的治疗意见。统计分析包括卡方检验、非参数 Kruskal-Wallis 检验、Bonferroni 校正的曼-惠特尼 U 检验(p<0.05)、绝对风险降低(ARR)和需要治疗的人数(NNT)。
两年后,116 名参与者的临床成功率为:CR=60.8%(n=31);HT=93.8%(n=30);NRCT=42.5%(n=14)(p<0.001)。主要/次要失败率存在差异:CR=17.6%(n=9)/21.6%(n=11);HT=6.2%(n=2)/0%;NRCT=33.3%(n=11)/24.2%(n=8)(p<0.05)。与 CR 相比,HT 的 ARR=0.33;NNT=3(95%CI 0.02-0.58);与 CR 相比,NRCT 无明显获益。超过 70%的儿童在治疗过程中表现出“积极/非常积极”的行为。CR 组 92.3%的病例疼痛强度为“非常低/低”,HT 组为 88.6%,NRCT 组为 77.1%。NRCT 组 82.9%的参与者认为操作“非常容易”,而 CR 组为 42.3%,HT 组为 17.1%(p<0.05)。CR 组比 NRCT 组和 HT 组花费的时间更长(p<0.05)。
HT 的临床成功率优于 CR 和 NRCT。所有治疗技术均被儿童良好耐受,CR 耗时更长,HT 技术上更难操作。
在原发性磨牙中可以成功地进行龋齿管理,采用最小干预措施,特别是使用 Hall 技术对龋齿病变进行密封。当提供足够的机械菌斑破坏和氟化物时,NRCT 可以预防龋齿进展。然而,偶尔的氟化物应用和使用含氟牙膏的不控制刷牙不能替代修复程序。