ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2016
Best clinical practice guidance for management of early caries lesions in children and young adults: an EAPD policy document.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines for Dental Caries Management for the Malaysian Population through the ADAPTE Trans-Contextual Adaptation Process.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Pooled it
- Parental awareness and dental health behavior of children with congenital heart disease, with diabetes mellitus, or undergoing anti-cancer treatment, compared to healthy children.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- Caries and quality of life in portuguese adolescents: Impact of diet and behavioural risk factors.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scope and purposeThe guidance provides evidence- and clinically-based recommendations for detecting and diagnosing early/non-cavitated caries lesions, risk assessment and disease management.MethodologyThe guidance development is based on three reviews(1,2,3) and an interim seminar and workshop organised by the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry in Brussels in May 2015.Review and updatingNo indication of a review or update schedule is given.RecommendationsSeven recommendations on caries detection and diagnosis, four recommendations on caries risk assessment and 11 on the management of the early carious lesion were made and they are briefly summarised in the table below.Research RecommendationsCaries detection and diagnosisThere is a need for more research in the primary dentition because most of the available studies consider only the permanent dentitionRadiograph subtraction studies need to be conductedOngoing evaluation of new methods and devicesThere is a need for well-designed prevention studies on early childhood caries which will provide sufficient and strong evidence of the cost-effectivenessThere is a significant need to bring the knowledge and learning to regular dental practice, to all the paediatric health care providers, the children and their parents.Caries risk assessmentClinical trials to assess the validity of models and single risk factors, as well as the role of confounding factors (eg age, lifestyle, socio-economy and socio-demography), for predicting caries.Further quantitative and qualitative health professional and parents would be helpful to identify perceptions and barriers to carrying out a CRA and to deliver a risk-based preventive care that could bridge the social inequalities in dental health.More research on the implementation of risk-based caries prevention and to establish the cost-effectiveness of such strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.