Background: Over 90% of adults aged 20 years or older with permanent teeth have suffered from dental caries leading to pain, infection, or even tooth loss. Although caries prevalence has decreased over the past decade, there are still about 23% of dentate adults who have untreated carious lesions in the US. Dental caries is a complex disorder affected by both individual susceptibility and environmental factors. Approximately 35-55% of caries phenotypic variation in the permanent dentition is attributable to genes, though few specific caries genes have been identified. Therefore, we conducted the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify genes affecting susceptibility to caries in adults. Methods: Five independent cohorts were included in this study, totaling more than 7000 participants. For each participant, dental caries was assessed and genetic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) were genotyped or imputed across the entire genome. Due to the heterogeneity among the five cohorts regarding age, genotyping platform, quality of dental caries assessment, and study design, we first conducted genome-wide association (GWA) analyses on each of the five independent cohorts separately. We then performed three meta-analyses to combine results for: (i) the comparatively younger, Appalachian cohorts (N = 1483) with well-assessed caries phenotype, (ii) the comparatively older, non-Appalachian cohorts (N = 5960) with inferior caries phenotypes, and (iii) all five cohorts (N = 7443). Top ranking genetic loci within and across meta-analyses were scrutinized for biologically plausible roles on caries. Results: Different sets of genes were nominated across the three meta-analyses, especially between the younger and older age cohorts. In general, we identified several suggestive loci (P-value ≤ 10E-05) within or near genes with plausible biological roles for dental caries, including RPS6KA2 and PTK2B, involved in p38-depenedent MAPK signaling, and RHOU and FZD1, involved in the Wnt signaling cascade. Both of these pathways have been implicated in dental caries. ADMTS3 and ISL1 are involved in tooth development, and TLR2 is involved in immune response to oral pathogens. Conclusions: As the first GWAS for dental caries in adults, this study nominated several novel caries genes for future study, which may lead to better understanding of cariogenesis, and ultimately, to improved disease predictions, prevention, and/or treatment.

A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.

People in Appalachia experience some of the worst oral health in the United States. To develop effective intervention and prevention strategies in Appalachia, we must understand the complex relationships among the contributing factors and how they affect the etiology of oral diseases. To date, no such comprehensive analysis has been conducted. This report summarizes the characteristics of the sample and describes the protocol of a study determining contributions of individual, family, and community factors to oral diseases in Appalachian children and their relatives.

This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85–1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17–1.45), and naproxen 400–440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07–1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.