Objective: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature published from 2000 to August 2015, to investigate the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy on dentoalveolar-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ddMSCs), assessing whether a clear conclusion can be reached from the data presented. Background data: Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of a procedure and permit investigation of factors that may influence the performance of a method. To the best of our knowledge, no previous systematic review has evaluated the effects of PBM only on ddMSCs. Methods: The search was conducted in PubMed /MEDLINE ^® , Scopus and Web of Science databases, and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses (PRISMA Statement). Original research articles investigating the effects of PBM therapy on ddMSCs, published from 2000 to August 2015, were retrieved and used for this review according to the following eligibility criteria: evaluating PBM therapy, assessing stem cells of dentoalveolar origin, published in English, dealing with cells characterized as stem cells, and using light that did not need external chromophores. Results: From the initial 3467 potentially relevant articles identified, 6 were excluded because they were duplicates, and 3453 were considered ineligible based on the inclusion criteria. Therefore, eight articles remained, and these were fully analyzed in order to closely check exclusion criteria items. Only one of them was excluded because the cultured cells studied were not characterized as stem cells. Finally, seven articles served as the basis for this systematic review. Conclusions: PBM therapy has no deleterious effects on ddMSCs. Although no other clear conclusion was obtained because of the scarce number of publications, the results of these studies are pointing to an important tendency of PBM therapy to improve ddMSCs' viability and proliferation.

A systematic quantitative evaluation of the available evidence of the treatment for caries lesions in primary teeth that considers how different caries progressions lead to the need for distinct interventions might provide additional useful information for clinical evidence-based decision making. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to verify the effect of the treatments on caries lesion arrestment (CLA) or the success rate (SR) of dentin caries lesion treatments in the primary teeth. A search was conducted using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases through December 2017. The primary search terms used in combination were primary teeth, caries lesion and restoration. The grey literature was also screened, as were the reference lists of eligible studies. A search of prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow up that compared different techniques was performed. The exclusion criteria were the absence of a comparison group; no evaluation of different restorative techniques; the evaluation of other outcomes unrelated to this review; and the recruitment of specific patient. The risk of bias was evaluated by the tools: the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and ROBINS-I. A network meta-analyses and meta-analyses were conducted considering CLA or SR as outcomes according to the surface involved and the depth of progression. Of the 1671 potentially eligible studies, 15 were included. For occlusal surfaces, only two studies presented data regarding the outer half of the dentin, with conventional restorative treatment (CRT) using composite resin showing superior results; five studies presented data regarding the depth of caries lesions, and CRT with compomer resulted in the best results. Seven studies considered occlusoproximal surfaces, and the Hall technique showed the best SR among the evaluated treatments. Finally, two annual applications of silver diamine fluoride showed the best nonrestorative approach to arrest caries lesions on occlusal and smooth surfaces. The treatments for dentin caries lesions in primary teeth depend on the depth of progression and the surface involved. However, few of the included studies provided evidence to strongly recommend the best treatment option. Funding: FAPESP; Systematic review registration number—PROSPERO CRD42016037784.