Randomised Controlled Trials of Caries Care Protocols: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Vickie Cai, Sarbin Ranjitkar, Bradley Christian, Rahena Akhter
{"title":"Randomised Controlled Trials of Caries Care Protocols: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Vickie Cai, Sarbin Ranjitkar, Bradley Christian, Rahena Akhter","doi":"10.1111/idh.70136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Caries care protocols (CCPs), commonly known as caries management systems, adopt a patient-centred, hygiene-focused approach to caries prevention. Although individual preventative strategies are well-studied, evidence on their combined efficacy is limited. The aim of this scoping review was to map and evaluate current evidence from clinical studies on the efficacy of CCPs in children and adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary outcomes were caries incidence (increment), progression and regression, and secondary outcomes were changes in caries risk from baseline to follow-up. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCP interventions with control groups receiving only standard preventive care within routine dental services. Titles and abstracts were screened from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, and data were extracted from full texts on study setting, methodology and outcomes. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three included studies (n = 1186 patients) from Australia, Greece and Colombia showed positive outcomes for CCPs. Risk of bias was moderate in two studies and high in one. Intervention groups in the higher-quality studies showed significantly lower caries increment and progression from baseline, along with a greater reduction in caries risk, compared to control groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited evidence from two heterogeneous RCTs shows moderate efficacy of CCPs, highlighting the need for more standardised outcomes and reporting to strengthen the evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":13791,"journal":{"name":"International journal of dental hygiene","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of dental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.70136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Caries care protocols (CCPs), commonly known as caries management systems, adopt a patient-centred, hygiene-focused approach to caries prevention. Although individual preventative strategies are well-studied, evidence on their combined efficacy is limited. The aim of this scoping review was to map and evaluate current evidence from clinical studies on the efficacy of CCPs in children and adults.

Methods: Primary outcomes were caries incidence (increment), progression and regression, and secondary outcomes were changes in caries risk from baseline to follow-up. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCP interventions with control groups receiving only standard preventive care within routine dental services. Titles and abstracts were screened from MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases, and data were extracted from full texts on study setting, methodology and outcomes. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.

Results: The three included studies (n = 1186 patients) from Australia, Greece and Colombia showed positive outcomes for CCPs. Risk of bias was moderate in two studies and high in one. Intervention groups in the higher-quality studies showed significantly lower caries increment and progression from baseline, along with a greater reduction in caries risk, compared to control groups.

Conclusion: Limited evidence from two heterogeneous RCTs shows moderate efficacy of CCPs, highlighting the need for more standardised outcomes and reporting to strengthen the evidence base.

龋齿护理方案的随机对照试验:范围综述。
简介:龋齿护理方案(CCPs)通常被称为龋齿管理系统,采用以患者为中心、以卫生为重点的方法来预防龋齿。尽管对个别预防策略进行了充分的研究,但其综合效果的证据有限。本综述的目的是绘制和评价目前来自儿童和成人CCPs疗效临床研究的证据。方法:主要结局是龋发病率(增量)、进展和消退,次要结局是龋风险从基线到随访的变化。纳入标准是随机对照试验(rct),比较CCP干预与常规牙科服务中仅接受标准预防护理的对照组。从MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL和Web of Science数据库中筛选标题和摘要,并从研究背景、方法和结果的全文中提取数据。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所的检查表来评估质量。结果:来自澳大利亚、希腊和哥伦比亚的三项纳入研究(n = 1186例患者)显示CCPs的阳性结果。两项研究的偏倚风险为中等,一项研究的偏倚风险为高。与对照组相比,高质量研究中的干预组显示,与基线相比,龋齿的增加和进展显著降低,龋齿风险也显著降低。结论:来自两项异质性随机对照试验的有限证据显示CCPs的疗效中等,强调需要更多标准化的结果和报告以加强证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International journal of dental hygiene
International journal of dental hygiene DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Dental Hygiene is the official scientific peer-reviewed journal of the International Federation of Dental Hygienists (IFDH). The journal brings the latest scientific news, high quality commissioned reviews as well as clinical, professional and educational developmental and legislative news to the profession world-wide. Thus, it acts as a forum for exchange of relevant information and enhancement of the profession with the purpose of promoting oral health for patients and communities. The aim of the International Journal of Dental Hygiene is to provide a forum for exchange of scientific knowledge in the field of oral health and dental hygiene. A further aim is to support and facilitate the application of new knowledge into clinical practice. The journal welcomes original research, reviews and case reports as well as clinical, professional, educational and legislative news to the profession world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书