RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Anterior open bite is defined by the lack of incisal contact between the teeth in centric relation. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of anterior open in children and adolescents. METHODS: This systematic review included a search in the databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. The acronym PECOS was considered: (P) children and adolescents, (E) presence of anterior open bite, (C) not applicable, (O) prevalence, and (S) observational studies. The risk of bias assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. The prevalence meta-analyses were performed using MedCalc® software. The certainty of the evidence was determined with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: 26 studies were included. Eleven studies were judged at low, seven at moderate, and eight at high risk of bias. The overall prevalence of anterior open bite was 16.52% (95% CI 12.34-21.17) in children and adolescents. The prevalence was 19.38% (95% CI 13.77-25.69) in South America. The prevalence of anterior open bite was 22.67% (95% CI 16.56-29.43) among females and 16.99% (95% CI 11.77-22.94) among males. The prevalence of anterior open bite was 18.84% (95% CI 13.88-24.38) in the primary dentition, and 14.26% (95% CI 7.67-22.46) in the mixed dentition. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of anterior open bite was 16.52% in children and adolescents aged 2-16 years. Giving the limitations of a prevalence meta-analysis, the extrapolation of the results should be cautious. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183162, 10 July 2020.
Asunto(s)
Mordida Abierta , Adolescente , Niño , Dentición Mixta , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Mordida Abierta/epidemiología , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Compare canal transportation and dentin removal using micro computed tomography (micro-CT) and measure instrumentation time in the root canal preparation of primary molars using K-files, ProDesign Logic and Reciproc files. METHODS: A representative sample of 81 root canals of primary molars was randomised into three groups: K-files (#15-40), ProDesign Logic (#25) and Reciproc (R25). A single-trained operator prepared all root canals. A standardised micro-CT evaluation was performed before and after instrumentation using the CTan® program. Instrumentation time was also recorded. Statistical analysis involved one-way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test, considering a 5% level of significance. RESULTS: Reciproc led to more canal transportation than K-files and ProDesign Logic (p < 0.001) in middle third, whereas K-files led to the most canal transportation in the apical third (p = 0.017). ProDesign Logic and Reciproc removed less dentin on the opposite side of the root curvature in the apical third compared to K-files (p = 0.008). Instrumentation time was better with ProDesign Logic and Reciproc than K-files (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ProDesign Logic demonstrated good results with regard to canal transportation and required less instrumentation time in primary molars. Reciproc and K-files led to the most canal transportation in the middle and apical third, respectively.
Asunto(s)
Cavidad Pulpar , Preparación del Conducto Radicular , Cavidad Pulpar/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Diente Molar/diagnóstico por imagen , Diente Molar/cirugía , Diente Primario , Microtomografía por Rayos XRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between caregiver oral health literacy (OHL) and socioeconomic factors, child and caregiver's oral health behaviors and perceptions of oral health status. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. CLINICAL SETTING: University pediatric dentistry clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 205 pairs of caregivers and children aged 6 to 12-years undergoing dental treatment. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to caregivers enquiring about socioeconomic factors, oral health behaviors, perceptions of own and child oral health. The clinical dental status of the children was recorded with the DMFT/dmft index. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: OHL was measured by the Brazilian version of the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Dentistry (BREALD-30). Descriptive analysis, unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, odds ratio and confidence interval were calculated considering a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The frequency of poor OHL was 21%. In adjusted analysis caregivers with 8 years or less of schooling had a 3.72 (95% CI 1.74-7.95) times greater chance of have poor OHL. Caregivers who perceived their child to have poor oral health were 2.70 (95% CI 1.10-6.63) times more likely to have poor OHL. CONCLUSIONS: Poor oral health literacy was more common among caregivers with less schooling and a poor perception of their child's oral health. OHL was unrelated to monthly family income, child dental health status, perception of own oral health or child or caregiver oral health behaviors.
Asunto(s)
Alfabetización en Salud , Salud Bucal , Adulto , Brasil , Cuidadores , Niño , Estudios Transversales , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Humanos , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
AIM: To compare the accuracy of three electronic apex locators in the measurement of the root length of primary teeth with the radiographic and direct visual techniques. METHODS: The sample of the in vitro study was 102 root canals of primary molars. For the direct visual technique, the root canal file was introduced into the canal until its tip passed the apical foramen, then it was moved back to the limit of the foramen or root resorption and the measurement was made with a millimetre ruler. For the radiographic measurement, a calibrated and blinded researcher (κ > 0.87) measured the root canals using the same rule. Measurements with apex locators were performed by inserting the file into the canal until the word "Apex" or audible warning to indicate the foramen or resorption. For data analysis, one-way ANOVA for repeated measurements and the Sidak post hoc tests were performed. RESULTS: The direct measurement (µ = 8.57) did not present statistical difference when compared to the Root ZX II measurement (µ = 8.45), as opposed to the radiographic measurements (µ = 8.12), the Endus (µ = 8.24) and iPex II (µ = 8.29). CONCLUSION: The use of apex locators was superior to the radiographic method and the Root ZX II was the most effective.