Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries.

Dental caries, a common chronic disease of childhood, is associated with adverse health and economic consequences for infants and their families. Socioeconomically disadvantaged children have a higher risk of early childhood caries (ECC). This review updates one published in 2019. To assess the effects of interventions undertaken with pregnant women, new mothers or other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, for preventing ECC (from birth to six years). We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL EBSCO, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). The latest searches were run on 3 January, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions with pregnant women, or new mothers and other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, against standard care, placebo or another intervention, reporting on a primary outcome: caries presence in primary teeth, dmfs (decayed, missing, filled primary surfaces index), or dmft (decayed, missing, filled teeth index), in children up to six years of age. Intervention types include clinical, oral health promotion/education (hygiene education, breastfeeding and other dietary advice) and policy or service. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed certainty of evidence (GRADE). We included 23 RCTs (5 cluster-randomised), involving 25,953 caregivers (mainly mothers) and their children. Fifteen trials assessed oral health education/promotion interventions against standard care. Six trials assessed a clinical intervention for mother dentition, against placebo, or a different type of clinical intervention. Two trials assessed oral health/education promotion plus clinical intervention (for mother's dentition) against standard care. At most, five trials (maximum of 1326 children and 130 mothers) contributed data to any comparison. Enamel-only caries were included in the diagnosis of caries in some studies. For many trials, the risk of bias was unclear due to lack of methodological details reported. In thirteen trials, participants were socioeconomically disadvantaged. No trial indicated receiving funding that was likely to have influenced their results. Oral health education/promotion interventions Child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care: We observed a probable 15 per cent reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth with the intervention (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 3 trials; 782 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be a slightly lower mean dmfs (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.58 to 0; 2 trials; 757 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the evidence is very uncertain regarding the difference between groups in mean dmft (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.05; 1 trial; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding promotion and support versus standard care: We observed little or no difference between groups in the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 2 trials; 1148 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in mean dmft (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.36; 2 trials; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence). dmfs was not reported. Child diet advice compared with standard care: We are very uncertain about the effect on the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.37; 1 trial; 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). dmfs and dmft were not reported. Oral hygiene, child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.07; 5 trials; 1326 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and there maybe little to no difference in mean dmfs (MD -0.87, 95% CI -2.18 to 0.43; 2 trials; 657 participants; low-certainty evidence) and mean dmft (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.36; 1 trial; 187 participants; low-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: We are very uncertain about the effect on risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.41; 1 trial; 496 participants; very low-certainty evidence). dmfs and dmft were not reported. Clinical interventions (for mother dentition) Chlorhexidine (CHX, a commonly prescribed antiseptic agent) or iodine-NaF application and prophylaxis versus placebo: We are very uncertain regarding the difference in risk of caries presence in primary teeth between antimicrobial and placebo treatment for mother dentition (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; 3 trials; 479 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported dmfs or dmft. Xylitol compared with CHX antimicrobial treatment: We are very uncertain about the effect on caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; 1 trial, 96 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but we observed there may be a lower mean dmft with xylitol (MD -2.39; 95% CI -4.10 to -0.68; 1 trial, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported dmfs. Oral health education/promotion plus clinical interventions (for mother dentition) Diet and feeding practice advice for infants and young children plus basic dental care for mothers compared with standard care: We are very uncertain about the effect on risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.95; 2 trials, 324 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or on mean dmft (1 study, not estimable). No trial reported dmfs. No trials evaluated policy or health service interventions. There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing advice on diet and feeding to pregnant women, mothers or other caregivers with children up to the age of one year probably leads to a slightly reduced risk of early childhood caries (ECC). The remaining evidence is low to very-low certainty and is insufficient for determining which, if any, other intervention types and features may be effective for preventing ECC, and in which settings. Large, high-quality RCTs of oral health education/promotion, clinical, and policy and service access interventions, are warranted to determine the effects and relative effects of different interventions and inform practice. We have identified 13 ongoing studies. Future studies should consider if and how effects are modified by intervention features and participant characteristics (including socioeconomic status).

Gomersall JC ，Slack-Smith L ，Kilpatrick N ，Muthu MS ，Riggs E ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries.

Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood and is associated with adverse health and economic consequences for infants and their families. Socioeconomically disadvantaged children have a higher risk of early childhood caries (ECC). To assess the effects of interventions with pregnant women, new mothers or other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, for preventing ECC (from birth to six years of age). Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 January 2019), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (to 22 January 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 14 January 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 14 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one or more interventions with pregnant women, mothers, or other caregivers of infants in the first year of life (intervention types included clinical, oral health education/promotion such as hygiene education, breastfeeding and other dietary advice, and policy or health service), versus standard care or placebo or another intervention. For inclusion, trials had to report at least one caries outcome. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 17 RCTs (4 cluster-randomised), involving 23,732 caregivers (mainly mothers) and their children. Eleven RCTs assessed four oral health education/promotion interventions against standard care: child diet advice, child diet and feeding practice advice, breastfeeding promotion and support, and oral hygiene with child diet and feeding practice advice. Six trials assessed clinical interventions in mother's dentition, four trials chlorhexidine (CHX, a commonly prescribed antiseptic agent) or iodine-NaF application and prophylaxis versus placebo, and two trials xylitol against CHX or CHX + xylitol. At most, three trials (maximum of 1148 children and 130 mothers) contributed data to any comparison. For many trials, risk of bias was judged unclear due to lack of methodological details reported, and there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. None of the included trials indicated receiving funding that is likely to have influenced their results. The trials were performed in high-, middle- and low-income countries. In nine trials, participants were socioeconomically disadvantaged. For child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care, we observed a probable 15 per cent reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth with the intervention (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 3 trials; 782 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be a lower mean dmfs (decayed, missing, filled primary surfaces) score (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.58 to 0; 2 trials; 757 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain regarding the difference between the groups in mean dmft (decayed, missing, filled teeth) score (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.05; 1 trial; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For breastfeeding promotion and support versus standard care, we observed that there may be little or no a difference between groups in the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 2 trials; 1148 participants; low-certainty evidence), or mean dmft score (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.36; 2 trials; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dmfs was not reported for this comparison. We are uncertain whether child diet advice only compared with standard care reduces risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.37; 1 trial; 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Dmfs and dmft were not reported for this comparison. For oral hygiene, child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care, we observed little or no reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 2 trials; 365 participants; low-certainty evidence), and are uncertain regarding difference between the groups in mean dmfs score (MD -0.99, 95% CI -2.45 to 0.47; 1 trial; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and dmft score (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.36; 1 trial; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed there may be little or no difference in risk of caries presence in primary teeth between antimicrobial and placebo treatment in mother's dentition (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; 3 trials; 479 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials assessing this comparison reported dmfs or dmft. For xylitol compared with CHX antimicrobial treatment, we observed there may be a lower mean dmft score with xylitol (MD -2.39; 95% CI -4.10 to -0.68; 1 trial, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain regarding the difference between groups in caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; 1 trial, 96 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither trial evaluating this comparison reported dmfs. No trials assessed a health policy or service intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that providing advice on diet and feeding to pregnant women, mothers or other caregivers with children up to the age of one year probably leads to a slightly reduced risk of early childhood caries (ECC). The remaining evidence is low to very low certainty and is insufficient for determining which, if any, other interventions types and features may be effective for preventing ECC. Large, high-quality RCTs of oral health education/promotion, clinical, and policy and service access interventions, are warranted to determine effects and relative effects of different interventions and inform practice. We have identified 12 studies currently in progress. Those designing future studies should describe the intervention components, setting and participants, consider if and how effects are modified by intervention features and participant characteristics, and adopt a consistent approach to measuring and reporting ECC.

Riggs E ，Kilpatrick N ，Slack-Smith L ，Chadwick B ，Yelland J ，Muthu MS ，Gomersall JC ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries.

Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation (CWF) is currently practised in about 25 countries; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. CWF is of interest to health professionals, policymakers and the public. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015, focusing on contemporary evidence about the effects of CWF on dental caries. To evaluate the effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes for the prevention of dental caries. To evaluate the association of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) with dental fluorosis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases up to 16 August 2023. We also searched two clinical trials registers and conducted backward citation searches. We included populations of all ages. For our first objective (effects of initiation or cessation of CWF programmes on dental caries), we included prospective controlled studies comparing populations receiving fluoridated water with those receiving non-fluoridated or naturally low-fluoridated water. To evaluate change in caries status, studies measured caries both within three years of a change in fluoridation status and at the end of study follow-up. For our second objective (association of water fluoridation with dental fluorosis), we included any study design, with concurrent control, comparing populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. In this update, we did not search for or include new evidence for this objective. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For our first objective, we included the following outcomes as change from baseline: decayed, missing or filled teeth ('dmft' for primary and 'DMFT' for permanent teeth); decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces ('dmfs' for primary and 'DMFS' for permanent teeth); proportion of caries-free participants for both primary and permanent dentition; adverse events. We stratified the results of the meta-analyses according to whether data were collected before or after the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste in 1975. For our second objective, we included dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern, or any level of fluorosis), and any other adverse events reported by the included studies. We included 157 studies. All used non-randomised designs. Given the inherent risks of bias in these designs, particularly related to management of confounding factors and blinding of outcome assessors, we downgraded the certainty of all evidence for these risks. We downgraded some evidence for imprecision, inconsistency or both. Evidence from older studies may not be applicable to contemporary societies, and we downgraded older evidence for indirectness. Water fluoridation initiation (21 studies) Based on contemporary evidence (after 1975), the initiation of CWF may lead to a slightly greater change in dmft over time (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.52; P = 0.09; 2 studies, 2908 children; low-certainty evidence). This equates to a difference in dmft of approximately one-quarter of a tooth in favour of CWF; this effect estimate includes the possibility of benefit and no benefit. Contemporary evidence (after 1975) was also available for change in DMFT (4 studies, 2856 children) and change in DMFS (1 study, 343 children); we were very uncertain of these findings. CWF may lead to a slightly greater change over time in the proportion of caries-free children with primary dentition (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; P = 0.12; 2 studies, 2908 children), and permanent dentition (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; P = 0.14; 2 studies, 2348 children). These low-certainty findings (a 4 percentage point difference and 3 percentage point difference for primary and permanent dentition, respectively) favoured CWF. These effect estimates include the possibility of benefit and no benefit. No contemporary data were available for adverse effects. Because of very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure of the size of effects of CWF when using older evidence (from 1975 or earlier) on all outcomes: change in dmft (5 studies, 5709 children), change in DMFT (3 studies, 5623 children), change in proportion of caries-free children with primary dentition (5 studies, 6278 children) or permanent dentition (4 studies, 6219 children), or adverse effects (2 studies, 7800 children). Only one study, conducted after 1975, reported disparities according to socioeconomic status, with no evidence that deprivation influenced the relationship between water exposure and caries status. Water fluoridation cessation (1 study) Because of very low-certainty evidence, we could not determine if the cessation of CWF affected DMFS (1 study conducted after 1975; 2994 children). Data were not available for other review outcomes for this comparison. Association of water fluoridation with dental fluorosis (135 studies) The previous version of this review found low-certainty evidence that fluoridated water may be associated with dental fluorosis. With a fluoride level of 0.7 parts per million (ppm), approximately 12% of participants had fluorosis of aesthetic concern (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants), and approximately 40% had fluorosis of any level (95% CI 35% to 44%; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Because of very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure of other adverse effects (including skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures and skeletal maturity; 5 studies, incomplete participant numbers). Contemporary studies indicate that initiation of CWF may lead to a slightly greater reduction in dmft and may lead to a slightly greater increase in the proportion of caries-free children, but with smaller effect sizes than pre-1975 studies. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of cessation of CWF on caries and whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries according to socioeconomic status. We found no eligible studies that report caries outcomes in adults. The implementation or cessation of CWF requires careful consideration of this current evidence, in the broader context of a population's oral health, diet and consumption of tap water, movement or migration, and the availability and uptake of other caries-prevention strategies. Acceptability, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the implementation and monitoring of a CWF programme should also be taken into account.

Iheozor-Ejiofor Z ，Walsh T ，Lewis SR ，Riley P ，Boyers D ，Clarkson JE ，Worthington HV ，Glenny AM ，O'Malley L ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia.

Postpartum iron deficiency anaemia is caused by antenatal iron deficiency or excessive blood loss at delivery and might affect up to 50% of labouring women in low- and middle-income countries. Effective and safe treatment during early motherhood is important for maternal well-being and newborn care. Treatment options include oral iron supplementation, intravenous iron, erythropoietin, and red blood cell transfusion. To assess the benefits and harms of the available treatment modalities for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. These include intravenous iron, oral iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, and erythropoietin. A Cochrane Information Specialist searched for all published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, without language or publication status restrictions. We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We applied date limits to retrieve new records since the last search on 9 April 2015 until 11 April 2024. We included published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia with placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We included RCTs regardless of blinding. Participants were women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, treated within six weeks after childbirth. We excluded non-randomised, quasi-randomised, and cross-over trials. The critical outcomes of this review were maternal mortality and fatigue. The important outcomes included persistent anaemia symptoms, persistent postpartum anaemia, psychological well-being, infections, compliance with treatment, breastfeeding, length of hospital stay, serious adverse events, anaphylaxis or evidence of hypersensitivity, flushing/Fishbane reaction, injection discomfort/reaction, constipation, gastrointestinal pain, number of red blood cell transfusions, and haemoglobin levels. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Two review authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We contacted trial authors for supplementary data when necessary. We screened all trials for trustworthiness and scientific integrity using the Cochrane Trustworthiness Screening Tool. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model whenever feasible to synthesise outcomes. In cases where data were not suitable for meta-analysis, we provided a narrative summary of important findings. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 33 RCTs with a total of 4558 postpartum women. Most trials were at high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Most of the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Imprecision due to few events and risk of bias due to lack of blinding were the most important factors. Intravenous iron versus oral iron supplementation The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 71.96; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 3 RCTs; 1 event; 572 women; very low-certainty evidence). One woman died of cardiomyopathy, and another developed arrhythmia, both in the groups treated with intravenous iron. Intravenous iron probably results in a slight reduction in fatigue within 8 to 28 days (standardised mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; P = 0.006; I² = 47%; 2 RCTs; 515 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding was not reported. Oral iron probably increases the risk of constipation compared to intravenous iron (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.21; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs; 1798 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 24.86; P = 0.36; I² = 0%; 12 RCTs; 2195 women; very low-certainty evidence). Three women treated with intravenous iron experienced anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity. The trials that reported on haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days were too heterogeneous to pool. However, 5 of 6 RCTs favoured intravenous iron, with mean changes in haemoglobin ranging from 0.73 to 2.10 g/dL (low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus intravenous iron No women died in the only trial that reported on mortality (1 RCT; 7 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of red blood cell transfusion on fatigue at 8 to 28 days (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -2.41 to 4.81; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57; P = 0.20; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence). Constipation and anaphylaxis were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin within 8 to 28 days (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.02; P = 0.05; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 12 women; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation versus oral iron supplementation Mortality and breastfeeding were not reported. One trial reported a greater improvement in fatigue in the intravenous and oral iron group, but the effect size could not be calculated (1 RCT; 128 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69; P = 0.01; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 128 women; low-certainty evidence). There were no anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity events in the trials (2 RCTs; 168 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin (g/dL) at 8 to 28 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.48; P = 1.00; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion Mortality, fatigue at day 8 to 28, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; P = 0.24; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 297 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral iron supplementation versus placebo or no treatment Mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Two trials reported on gastrointestinal symptoms, but did not report results by study arm. Intravenous iron probably reduces fatigue slightly in the early postpartum weeks (8 to 28 days) compared to oral iron tablets, but probably results in little to no difference after four weeks. It is very uncertain if intravenous iron has an effect on mortality and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Breastfeeding was not reported. Intravenous iron may increase haemoglobin slightly more than iron tablets, but the data were too heterogeneous to pool. However, changes in haemoglobin levels are a surrogate outcome, and treatment decisions should preferentially be based on patient-relevant outcomes. Iron tablets probably result in a large increase in constipation compared to intravenous iron. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to intravenous iron on mortality, fatigue, and breastfeeding is very uncertain. No studies reported on constipation or anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days. The effect of intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity is very uncertain or unreported. Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone, and in little to no difference in haemoglobin. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to non-transfusion on mortality, fatigue, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding. The effect of oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol and previous versions are available: Protocol (2013) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861] Original review (2004) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004222.pub2] Review update (2015) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861.pub2].

Jensen MCH ，Holm C ，Jørgensen KJ ，Schroll JB ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Topical silver diamine fluoride (SDF) for preventing and managing dental caries in children and adults.

Dental caries is the world's most prevalent disease. Untreated caries can cause pain and negatively impact psychosocial health, functioning, and nutrition. It is important to identify cost-effective, easy-to-use agents, which can prevent or arrest caries. This review evaluates silver diamine fluoride (SDF). To assess the effects of silver diamine fluoride for preventing and managing caries in primary and permanent teeth (coronal and root caries) compared to any other intervention including placebo or no treatment. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Oral Health's Trial Register and two clinical trials registers in June 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with parallel-group or split-mouth design, in children and adults (with or without carious lesions) that compared SDF with placebo or no treatment; different frequencies, concentrations or duration of SDF; or any other intervention. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We collected data for primary caries prevention (change in caries increment), arrest of carious lesions, secondary prevention of caries (lesions do not progress from initial classification), adverse effects, dental pain or sensitivity, and aesthetics at the end of study follow-up. We included 29 RCTs (13,036 participants; 12,020 children, 1016 older adults). We summarise outcome data for the five most clinically relevant comparisons. All studies included high risks of bias, and some findings were imprecise (e.g. because of small sample sizes). SDF versus placebo or no treatment (14 studies; 2695 children, 905 older adults) Compared to placebo or no treatment, SDF may help prevent new caries in the primary dentition (1 study, 373 participants), or on the coronal surfaces of permanent dentition (1 study, 373 participants) but the evidence is very uncertain. SDF likely prevents new root caries (mean difference (MD) -0.79 surfaces, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.40 to -0.17; 3 studies, 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SDF may help arrest caries in the primary dentition (MD 0.86 surfaces, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; 2 studies, 841 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the permanent dentition (coronal: 1 study, 373 participants; root: 1 study, 158 participants) but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain for secondary prevention of caries (primary dentition: 1 study, 128 participants; permanent dentition (coronal): 1 study, 663 participants), for adverse effects (5 studies, 1299 participants), and aesthetics (1 study, 43 participants). Different approaches to SDF application (5 studies, 1808 children) Studies compared different frequencies or intervals of application, different concentrations of SDF, and different durations of treatment. Some studies included multiple comparisons of different approaches. Because of the different approaches, we could not combine findings from these studies. Due to very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure whether any approach to SDF application was better than another for caries arrest (4 studies, including 8 comparisons of different approaches, 1360 participants); secondary prevention of caries (1 study, 203 participants), or led to differences in adverse effects (3 studies, 1121 children) or aesthetics (1 study, 119 children). SDF versus fluoride varnish (8 studies, 2868 children, 223 older adults) Compared to flouride varnish, SDF may result in little or no difference to the prevention of new caries in the primary dentition (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.26; 1 study, 434 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for this outcome measure in the permanent dentition (coronal: 1 study, 237 participants; root: 1 study, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Due to very low-certainty evidence, we were unsure whether or not there were any differences between flouride varnish (applied weekly for three applications) and SDF for caries arrest and secondary prevention of caries in the primary dentition (1 study, 309 participants). Similarly, we were unsure of adverse effects (3 studies, 980 children), dental pain or sensitivity (1 study, 62 children), or aesthetics (1 study, 263 children). SDF versus sealants and resin infiltration (2 studies, 343 children) Very low-certainty evidence in this comparison meant we were unsure if either treatment was better than the other for primary prevention of caries in permanent dentition (coronal: 1 study, 242 participants), or adverse effects (2 studies, 336 participants). SDF versus atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or GI material (4 studies, 610 children) Very low-certainty evidence in this comparison meant we were unsure if either treatment was better than the other at arresting caries in the primary dentition (1 study, 143 participants). We were also unsure whether there were any differences between treatments in adverse effects (3 studies, 482 participants), dental pain or sensitivity (1 study, 234 participants), or aesthetics (2 studies, 248 participants). In the primary dentition, evidence remains uncertain whether SDF prevents new caries or progression of existing caries compared to placebo or no treatment, but it may offer benefit over placebo or no treatment in caries arrest. Compared to placebo or no treatment, SDF probably also helps prevent new root caries. However, the evidence is uncertain for other caries outcome measures in this dentition and in all caries outcomes for coronal surfaces of permanent dentition. Compared to flouride varnish, SDF may offer little or no benefit in preventing new caries in the primary dentition, but the evidence is very uncertain for other caries outcome measures in the primary dentition and for preventing new caries in the permanent dentition. We were unable to establish whether one SDF treatment approach was better than another, or how SDF compared to other treatments, because of very low-certainty evidence. The impact of SDF staining of teeth was poorly reported and the evidence for adverse effects is very uncertain. Additional well-conducted studies are needed. These should measure the impact of staining and be analysed to take account of clustering issues within participants.

Worthington HV ，Lewis SR ，Glenny AM ，Huang SS ，Innes NP ，O'Malley L ，Riley P ，Walsh T ，Wong MCM ，Clarkson JE ，Veitz-Keenan A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》