Cited by 14Dental Health and Care UtilizationEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsDental materials and restorations

A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial of 38% SDF vs. Restorative Treatment

Cleary, J., Al-Hadidi, R., Scully, A., Yahn, W., Zaid, Z., Boynton, J.R., Eckert, G.J., Yanca, E. +1 more·2022·JDR Clinical & Translational Research

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this 2-arm, parallel-group, 12-mo randomized clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of semiannual application of 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) versus restorative treatment (RT) to manage cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth in a diverse population of children in Michigan. Methods Children aged 2 to 10 y with at least 1 soft cavitated lesion (International Caries Detection and Assessment System 5 or 6) with no pain or signs/symptoms of irreversible pulpitis were recruited and randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups. One random lesion per child received 38% SDF (twice, at a 6-mo interval) or RT. All interventions and assessments were done by calibrated dentists. Primary outcome measures were clinical failure rates: minor (e.g., reversible pulpitis, active/soft lesion or progression, restoration loss or need for replacement/repair, secondary caries) and major (e.g., irreversible pulpitis, abscess, extraction). Parent, child, and provider acceptability was also assessed. Results Ninety-eight children were enrolled and randomized, with a mean (SD) age of 4.8 y (1.8); 46% were female and their mean dmft + DMFT was 6.3 (3.9). Sixty-nine children were assessed at 12 mo (sample was within the planned 30% attrition rate). There were significantly more teeth with minor failures (SDF = 65%, RT = 23%, P ≤ 0.001) and major failures (SDF = 13%, RT = 3%, P ≤ 0.001) in the SDF group than the RT group; 74% of SDF-treated lesions were hard at 12 mo vs. 57…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/23800844211072741

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cleary, J., Al-Hadidi, R., Scully, A., Yahn, W., Zaid, Z., Boynton, J. R., Eckert, G. J., Yanca, E., & Fontana, M.
Affiliations
  • Private practice, East Lansing, MI, USA
  • Private practice, Grosse Pointe and Novi, MI, USA
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Private practice, Saginaw, MI, USA
  • Private practice, Westminster, CO, USA
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Fontana, M.
Venue
JDR Clinical & Translational Research
Published
2022-02-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
135-144
ISSN
  • 2380-0844 (ISSN-L)
  • 2380-0852
OpenAlex
W4210420387
Cited by
14
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JDR Clinical & Translational Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Renaissance Health Service Corporation of Michigan
  • Delta Dental plan of Winsconsin
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
Keywords
silver diamine fluoride, restorative treatment, primary teeth, pediatric dentistry, caries management, irreversible pulpitis, treatment failure, secondary caries, treatment acceptability, caries risk, high caries risk children, fluoride varnish
MeSH terms
Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Cariostatic Agents, Child, Dental Caries, Female, Fluorides, Topical, Humans, Male, Pulpitis, Silver Compounds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review