RESUMEN
Objective: The principal aim of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to test the effectiveness in the prevention of Early Childhood Caries (ECC) through an educational intervention program with the use of a printed guide for pediatricians and parents both designed by pediatric dentists. Materials and methods: After ethical approval, the first step was to design the educational guides, which were based on the information obtained from a focus group with pediatricians (n = 3), phone interviews with mothers to toddlers' (n = 7), and the best evidence available about children's oral health. For the RCT, 309 parents with their 10-12 months old children were randomly allocated to either the intervention or the control group. Parents in the intervention group received oral health education from the pediatricians supported by the printed guides. Parents in both groups received an oral health kit with a toothbrush and toothpaste at the first visit as well as at each 6-month follow-up visit. After 18 months the children were evaluated using ICDAS criteria. Results: At baseline, data were available from 309 children (49.8% girls). The mean age of the children was of 10.8 months (SD = 0.8) and 69.3% had not had their teeth brushed with toothpaste. After 18 months, a total of 28 (22%) children in the intervention group and 44 (24%) in the control group were clinically examined. Regarding the number of tooth surfaces with caries lesions, the children in the intervention group had a mean of 6.50 (SD = 6.58) surfaces, while the children in the control group had a mean of 5.43 (SD = 4.74) surfaces with caries lesions. This difference was not significant (p = 0.460). Conclusion: The RCT showed no effectiveness in caries-progression control. Despite this result, this study managed to identify barriers that do not allow pediatricians from offering parents adequate oral health recommendations. With this learning, it is possible to work on collaborative programs with pediatricians that over time likely will increase dental health by controlling for ECC.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: With this in vitro study we aimed to assess the possibility of precise application of sealant on accessible artificial white spot lesions (WSL) on approximal surfaces next to a tooth surface under operative treatment. A secondary aim was to evaluate whether the use of magnifying glasses improved the application precision. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-six extracted premolars were selected, approximal WSL lesions were created with 15% HCl gel and standardized photographs were taken. The premolars were mounted in plaster-models in contact with a neighbouring molar with Class II/I-II restoration (Sample 1) or approximal, cavitated dentin lesion (Sample 2). The restorations or the lesion were removed, and Clinpro Sealant was placed over the WSL. Magnifying glasses were used when sealing half the study material. The sealed premolar was removed from the plaster-model and photographed. Adobe Photoshop was used to measure the size of WSL and sealed area. The degree of match between the areas was determined in Photoshop. RESULTS: Interclass agreement for WSL, sealed, and matched areas were found as excellent (κ = 0.98-0.99). The sealant covered 48-100% of the WSL-area (median = 93%) in Sample 1 and 68-100% of the WSL-area (median = 95%) in Sample 2. No statistical differences were observed concerning uncovered proportions of the WSL-area between groups with and without using magnifying glasses (p values ≥ .19). However, overextended sealed areas were more pronounced when magnification was used (p = .01). The precision did not differ between the samples (p = .31). CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to seal accessible approximal lesions with high precision. Use of magnifying glasses did not improve the precision.