Background: Historically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated.
Objectives: The objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression.
Design: This was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit.
Setting: This trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales.
Participants: Participants were NHS patients aged 3-7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis.
Interventions: Three interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth).
Main outcome measures: The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period.
Results: A total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm, n = 386; biological arm, n = 381; prevention alone arm, n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm, n = 352; biological arm, n = 352; prevention alone arm, n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8-36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was -0.02 (97.5% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval -0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis.
Conclusions: There was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period.
Future work: Recommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Keywords: CARIES PREVENTION; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; DENTAL ANXIETY; DENTAL CARIES; FILLINGS; PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY; PREVENTION; PRIMARY CARE; PRIMARY TEETH; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESTORATION; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS.
What was the question?: Tooth decay is common; it can lead to pain, days off school for children and days off work for parents and is a financial burden to the NHS. There is uncertainty about the best way of managing decay in young children. This trial aimed to find out whether or not there was a difference in the amount of pain and/or infection suffered by children having their decay treated with one of the following: fillings, having decay sealed in or using preventative treatment alone. Which method represented the best value was also explored.
What did we do?: For young children with decay, the Filling Children’s Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) trial compared the difference between fillings, sealing in the decay and using preventative treatment alone over 3 years in NHS dental practices in Scotland, England and Wales. We recruited 1144 children aged 3–7 years with one or more holes in their baby back teeth (molars), but without pain/infection, and placed them at random into one of three groups: (1) tooth numbing, removing decay and filling(s) with preventative treatment; (2) sealing in decay with fillings or caps and preventative treatment but no numbing; or (3) preventative treatment alone.
What did we find?: Recruitment was challenging but was achieved. There was no evidence of a difference in children’s experience of pain or infection, quality of life or dental anxiety between groups. All three ways of treating decay were acceptable to children, parents and dental professionals. Sealing in with preventative treatment was most likely to be considered the best way of managing children’s decay if we are willing to pay a minimum of £130 to avoid an episode of pain or infection.
What does this mean?: As there was no evidence of a difference between the three treatment groups in pain/infection experienced, treatment choice should continue to be based on shared decision-making between the child, parent and clinician to agree the best option for the individual child.