Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Parental acceptance of silver Diamine fluoride application on primary dentition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference Site Duration Study design Sample size Children age Methods/outcome definition/techniques Groups Results (parental acceptance) P value
Acceptable
n (%)
Somewhat acceptable
n (%)
Not sure/ neutral/ I don’t know
n (%)
Somewhat unacceptable
n (%)
Unacceptable
n (%)
Kumar et al. (2019) [22] Eight -community health centres affiliated with the NYU Langone Dental Medicine Pediatric Dentistry Residency Program that offers treatment for low SES May–November 2017 Cross- section 546 caregivers > 6 y Questionnaire on parental perception of the black stain left by the SDF, and their level of comfort before their children received the SDF treatment
(primary teeth)
Dark mark of SDF treatment:
Patient < 6 y (n = 410)
125 (30.5) 191 (46.6) 92 (22.4) No comparison
Comfort regarding SDF treatment:
Patient < 6 y (n = 410)
216 (52.7) 125 (30.5) 69 (16.8) No comparison
Vollú et al. (2019) [26] Pediatric Dental Clinic of UFRJ, Brazil June 2016 and August 2017 RCT 67 children
34
2–5 y Questionnaire on Parental aesthetic perception after two weeks of application by questions addressed to caregivers (primary molars) Test group:(30% SDF) (n = 34)
Control group: (atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) (n = 33).
33 (97.1)
33 (100)
1 (2.9)
0
0.51*
Alshammari et al. (2019) [21] Saudi Arabia Not mentioned Cross- section 222 parents Not mentioned Before and after photos with questionnaire on parental SDF aesthetic acceptance (primary teeth photographs) Anterior teeth 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (9.9) 200 (90.1) P < 0.05**
Posterior teeth 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (3.2) 63 (28.4) 152 (68.5)
Duangthip et al. (2018) [25] 37 kindergartens in Hong Kong Not mentioned RCT 888 parents 3–4 y Questionnaire regarding parental satisfaction with child’s dental appearance at baseline, 18, 30 months follow-up (primary teeth) Application of 38% SDF annually:
Baseline
3 (1.4) 98 (44.1) 25 (11.3) 91 (41.0) 5 (2.3) P > 0.05
18 months follow-up 6 (2.9) 131 (63.3) 29 (14.0) 35 (16.9) 6 (2.9)
30 months follow-up after 9 (4.5) 134 (66.3) 24 (11.9) 32 (15.8) 3 (1.59)
Application of 12% SDF annually:
Baseline
1 (0.5) 79 (35.6) 36 (16.2) 98 (44.1) 8 (3.6)
4 (1.9)
18 months follow-up 15 (7.2) 128 (61.8) 22 (10.6) 38 (18.4)  
30 months follow-up 8 (4.0) 126 (63.6) 21 (10.6) 34 (17.2) 9 (4.5)
Bagher et al. (2018) King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabi December 2017–February 2018 Cross-section 104 parents ≤12 y Before and after photos with questionnaire on parental preference (primary teeth) Anterior primary teeth
Posterior primary teeth
17 (16.3)
33 (31.7)
20 (19.2)
37 (35.6)
5 (4.8)
6 (5.8)
19 (18.3)
9 (8.7)
43 (41.3)
19 (18.3)
P < 0.05**
Cooperative
Anterior teeth
Posterior teeth
Uncooperative:
Anterior teeth
Posterior teeth
10 (12.3)
19 (23.4)
7 (30.4)
14 (60.9)
13 (16)
0 (37)
7 (30.4)
7 (30.4)
2 (2.5)
4 (3.8)
3 (13.0)
2 (8.7)
17 (31)
9 (4.2)
2 (8.7)
0 (0)
39 (48.1)
19 (32.4)
4 (17.4)
0 (0)
Crystal et al. (2017) [19] NYU Pediatric Dental Clinic, New York, & private pediatric dentistry clinics, New Jersey, USA Not mentioned Cross-section 120 parents Not mentioned Before and after treatment sets of photos then questionnaire to evaluate parents’ acceptance of the aesthetics
(primary teeth photographs)
Anterior teeth
Posterior teeth
12*(10.17)
26 (21.67)
23 (19.49)
55 (45.83)
-
-
29 (23.73)
13 (10.83)
56 (46.61)
26 (21.67)
P < 0.001**
Cooperative
Anterior teeth
Posterior teeth
Uncooperative:
Anterior teeth
Posterior teeth
36 (29.7)
81 (67.5)
72 (60.3)
82 (68.5)
-
-
-
-
48 (39.6)
38 (31.5)
Not mentioned
Not mentioned
Clements et al. (2017) Community dental clinic, Oregon, USA Not mentioned Clinical study 30 parents 2–5 y Parent Acceptability Questionnaire for Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) Treatment (discoloration, easy application process, pain, taste) (primary teeth) SDF application is an easy process
I am comfortable with discoloration of cavities after SDF placement
SDF application was pain free for my child
The taste of SDF was acceptable to my child
19 (63.3)
16 (53.3)
21 (70.0)
19 (63.3)
8 (26.7)
10 (33.3)
7 (23.3)
7 (23.3)
3 (10.0)
3 (10.0)
2 (6.7)
4 (13.3)
0
1 (3.3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
No comparison
Belotti et al. (2016) [23] Odontopediatrics clinic in the Federal University of the Espírito Santo, Brazil Not mentioned Clinical trial (CT) 14 parents 4–10 y Photographs were taken before and after SDF treatment.
Looking the photographs, parents respond a questionnaire to evaluate the aesthetics acceptability
(primary molars)
Noticing aesthetic difference
Negatively interferes with aesthetics
9* (64.3)
0 (0)
1 (7.1)
-
4 (28.6)
14 (100)
No comparison
Zhi et al. (2012) [24] kindergartens Guangzhou, Guangdong Province in southern China 2007–2009 RCT 212 parents Not mentioned Questionnaire on parent aesthetic satisfaction at base line and after 24 months
(primary teeth)
Gp1: annual application of SDF,
Gp2: semi-annual application of SDF
Gp3: annual application of glass ionomer
95* (45%) of the parents were satisfied with the appearance of their child’s teeth at the 24-month evaluation P > 0.05
Triches et al. (2009) UNIPAR’s (State University of Paraná, Brazil) Baby Clinic in the city of Cascavel, PR, Brazil March–December 2007 Case-control 50 parents 0–3 y Questionnaire on parent aesthetic satisfaction and the effect of instructions about the procedure with post-treatment picture of primary teeth, while the other group showed only a post-treatment picture
(primary teeth)
With instructions
Without instructions
2 (8)
7 (28)
15 (60)
11 (44)
5 (20)
-
1 (4)
6 (24)
2 (8)
1 (4)
0.08*
  1. # Data are reported as no. (%)*only percentage was reported in the study, the number of parents and/or the P value were calculated by the authors, **Significant
  2. *only percentage was reported in the study, the number of parents and/or the P value were calculated by the authors
  3. **Significant