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* |