Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and degree of acceptance by children and adolescents of the use of oscillating tips compared with rotating drills. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library and Web of Science (October 2017). Eligibility criteria: Controlled randomised or nonrandomised trials that evaluated sonic and ultrasonic oscillating devices versus rotating drill. Data extraction: Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Method. Results: Two controlled clinical trials comprising 123 children aged 2-12 years old were identified. Both trials were at high risk of selection bias and unclear risk of detection bias. In one trial, pain due to the use of oscillating drill resulted lower than employing rotating drill (Verbal Hochman Scale: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.00); Visual Facial Expression Scale: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94)). In another study, compared with traditional drill ultrasonic tip was associated with a lower level of patient's discomfort (RR 0.40 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.79)) but not with dental anxiety (RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.71)). The effectiveness of the removal of caries as well as fillings durability were only considered in one study, but no statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions. Conclusions: The evidence based on two low-quality studies was insufficient to conclude that the use of oscillating tips for the management of pain and dental fear in children or adolescents compared with rotating drills was more effective.
Sonic and ultrasonic oscillating devices for the management of pain and dental fear in children or adolescents that require caries removal: A systematic review
Cianetti, Stefano;Pagano, Stefano;Lupatelli, Eleonora;Lombardo, Guido
2018
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and degree of acceptance by children and adolescents of the use of oscillating tips compared with rotating drills. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library and Web of Science (October 2017). Eligibility criteria: Controlled randomised or nonrandomised trials that evaluated sonic and ultrasonic oscillating devices versus rotating drill. Data extraction: Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Method. Results: Two controlled clinical trials comprising 123 children aged 2-12 years old were identified. Both trials were at high risk of selection bias and unclear risk of detection bias. In one trial, pain due to the use of oscillating drill resulted lower than employing rotating drill (Verbal Hochman Scale: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.00); Visual Facial Expression Scale: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94)). In another study, compared with traditional drill ultrasonic tip was associated with a lower level of patient's discomfort (RR 0.40 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.79)) but not with dental anxiety (RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.71)). The effectiveness of the removal of caries as well as fillings durability were only considered in one study, but no statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions. Conclusions: The evidence based on two low-quality studies was insufficient to conclude that the use of oscillating tips for the management of pain and dental fear in children or adolescents compared with rotating drills was more effective.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
