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