Open AccessPatient-reported outcomes associated with different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review and MTC meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Nathalia de Miranda Ladewig,
Tamara Kerber Tedesco,
Thaís Gimenez,
Mariana Minatel Braga,
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0208437
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , anxiety , random effects model , statistic , standard deviation , medline , study heterogeneity , restorative dentistry , physical therapy , dentistry , statistics , mathematics , psychiatry , political science , law
Background Despite the increasing number of studies evaluating patient reported outcome measures (PROs), there is no clearness regarding which restorative treatment offers major benefits based on the pediatric patient perspective. Aim To compare different restorative techniques in pediatric dentistry regarding patient-reported outcomes. Design Literature searching was carried out on prospective studies indexed in PubMed, Scopus and OpenGrey. A Mixed Treatment Comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis was undertaken considering the results from reviewed studies. Anxiety, pain and quality of life were extracted as mean with standard deviation, percentage of pain, and mean difference of scores with standard deviation, respectively. For direct comparisons, data were combined using a random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic. For indirect comparisons, fixed and random effects were chosen through comparison of competing models based on the Deviance Information Criteria (DIC). The expected efficacy ranking based on the posterior probabilities of all treatment rankings was also calculated. Results An initial search resulted in 4,322 articles, of which 17 were finally selected. Due to unavailability of data, only pain, anxiety and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) were statistically analyzed. The difference in means (95% CI) of anxiety between treatments using only hand instruments with or without chemomechanical agents were -5.35 (-6.42 to -4.20) and -5.79 (-7.77 to -3.79) respectively when compared to conventional treatment using rotary instruments and/or local anesthesia. Regarding pain, there was a trend for treatments without rotary instruments and local anesthesia to be less frequently reported as painful. No statistical difference was found intragroup nor among treatments for OHRQoL. Conclusions Anxiety and pain are directly related with more invasive restorative treatments. On the other hand, quality of life is not improved regardless of the restorative technique used. Further well-designed prospective studies regarding PROs in children are still necessary.