Background: General anesthesia (GA) plays a key role in pediatric dentistry by enabling comprehensive dental treatment in children who cannot be adequately managed using conventional behavioral techniques, local anesthesia, or sedation. While previous reviews have primarily focused on safety outcomes and adverse events, less attention has been given to patterns of GA utilization and their broader clinical and public health implications. Objective: The objective was to synthesize and critically analyze contemporary evidence on utilization patterns, clinical indications, and treatment characteristics associated with GA in pediatric dentistry and to interpret variability in GA use as a clinical and health-system indicator. Methods: A systematic review with qualitative synthesis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in EBSCOhost, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library to identify observational studies published between 2015 and 2025 reporting clinical data on pediatric dental treatment under GA. Results: Twenty-two observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Severe early childhood caries was the most frequently reported indication for GA, followed by behavioral management difficulties and treatment of children with special health care needs. Reported utilization rates varied widely across healthcare systems. Conclusions: GA remains an essential modality for managing complex pediatric dental cases; however, variability in utilization appears to reflect differences in preventive access, disease burden, and health-system organization. Interpreting GA use as a healthcare utilization indicator may support improved preventive strategies and policies aimed at reducing repeated GA exposure in vulnerable pediatric populations.

Background/Objectives: Dental caries is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in childhood. Rotary bur handpiece excavation has been the standardised mechanical benchmark for infected dentine removal in the primary dentition, but it is associated with noise, vibration, and nociceptive triggers that influence behavioural cooperation in paediatric patients. CMCR gels have been developed for selective softening and excavation of infected primary dentine without macroscopic removal of adjacent sound tissue at the protocol-defined site. The objective of this review was to systematically synthesise the evidence on chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) using Papacarie or Brix 3000 compared with infected dentine excavation using rotary bur handpiece instrumentation in the primary (deciduous) dentition, focusing on excavation effectiveness, paediatric procedural tolerance, anaesthetic requirement, dentine surface morphology at the excavation interface, and protocol-level operative duration per primary molar. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for English-language studies from database inception to 31 December 2023. Although no eligible paediatric dental records addressing CMCR gels for excavation of infected primary dentine were identified before 2009, the earlier literature was not intentionally excluded; rather, it did not retrieve topic-specific matches meeting the eligibility criteria. Clinical and in vitro investigations evaluating CMCR gels (Papacarie or Brix 3000) for excavation of infected primary dentine in primary molars were eligible. Outcomes were aggregated qualitatively by excavation approach and reported per primary molar at the individual study protocol level. Quantitative pooling or meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs and lack of unified denominators across the included literature. Results: Fifteen studies were included (randomised clinical trials, observational clinical investigations, clinical comparative studies, and in vitro assessments) evaluating infected dentine excavation in primary molars. CMCR gels achieved successful excavation of infected primary dentine with dentine preservation at the adjacent non-infected interface without macroscopic loss of sound tissue. Individual study protocols that reported paediatric pain outcomes during primary-molar excavation registered lower pain scores, reduced acoustic/vibratory stress, lower anaesthetic escalation cycles, and decreased local anaesthesia requirement per primary molar compared with rotary bur handpiece excavation arms. Dentine surfaces analysed under SEM protocols at the infected excavation interface described patent tubules, absence of compacted smear at the interface, preserved intertubular dentine, and no iatrogenic gouging or macrofracture of non-infected primary dentine per molar at the individual study level. Operative duration for CMCR ranged from 10 to 25 min per primary molar per tooth, while rotary bur handpiece excavation required 3–10 min per primary molar per tooth, depending on cavity extension and dentine hardness, as defined by each study protocol. Microleakage and bond-strength assays performed in vitro at the individual protocol level did not register disadvantage signals traceable to adhesive or sealing incompatibility following CMCR gel excavation per primary molar. Conclusions: CMCR with Papacarie or Brix 3000 enables protocol-level selective excavation of infected primary dentine in primary molars, reducing acoustic, vibratory, and nociceptive triggers that influence behaviour and local anaesthetic requirement per primary molar. Clinical inference should be restricted to infected dentine excavation per primary-molar denominators, avoiding extrapolation to all caries depths or all deciduous-tooth types. Standardised paediatric primary-molar infected dentine excavation trials with homogeneous denominators, bias-controlled outcome instruments, and longitudinal follow-up are required to strengthen cavity-depth indications, pulp-proximal excavation reliability, and restorative longevity guidance in the primary dentition clinical workflow.

Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether hyoid bone position differs across vertical skeletal growth patterns through a systematic review and meta-analysis using cephalometric and CBCT measurements. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched up to June 4, 2026. Twenty-three reports were included in the qualitative synthesis (22 comparative studies and one normative reference report; 3404 participants), and 22 comparative studies underwent NIH quality assessment. Six studies contributed to the H-MP meta-analysis. For H-C3, four studies reporting vertical-pattern contrasts formed the primary pool, although residual sagittal confounding remained; two sagittal-proxy studies were added only in the sensitivity analysis. Results: For H-MP, pooled SMD was 0.185 (95% CI: −0.231 to 0.601; p = 0.383; I² = 87.2%; k = 6). For H-C3, the primary pooled MD was −1.30 mm (95% CI: −2.32 to −0.28; p = 0.013; I² = 48.6%; k = 4); the sensitivity pool yielded −1.45 mm (95% CI: −2.51 to −0.38; p = 0.008; k = 6). Conclusions: H-MP did not differ significantly between patterns. The pooled H-C3 estimate indicated a more posterior hyoid position in groups classified as hyperdivergent; however, residual sagittal confounding prevents its attribution to vertical divergence alone. Cranial-base or coordinate-based measurements independent of mandibular-plane inclination should be prioritised.

Background: Early feeding practices are among the most influential determinants of the infant oral microbiota during the first years of life. Breastfeeding provides bioactive components—immunoglobulins, human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), and commensal bacteria—that may shape microbial colonisation patterns with long-term implications for oral health. However, the nature, magnitude, and clinical relevance of these effects remain poorly characterised, particularly with regard to early childhood caries (ECC) risk. Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the association between early feeding practices and oral microbiota composition during infancy. A secondary exploratory objective was to assess whether feeding-associated microbiota differences had been linked to subsequent dental caries outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from January 2010 to June 2026. Eligible studies compared at least two feeding groups and measured oral microbiota directly using culture-independent methods (16S rRNA gene sequencing, metagenomics, or quantitative PCR targeting multiple taxa). Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-E tool were performed independently. Qualitative synthesis was conducted given clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Results: Of 8582 records identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria (sample size range: 12–448 participants; age range at microbiota assessment: 2 days–14 years, although eligibility was based on feeding exposure during infancy; six countries). Most included studies reported differences in oral microbiota composition associated with feeding type. During the first months of life, breastfed infants generally showed lower oral microbial diversity and higher abundance of Lactobacillus, the Streptococcus mitis group and Bifidobacterium compared with formula-fed infants, who exhibited greater alpha diversity, higher transmission of maternal oral bacteria, and higher abundance of Prevotella and Actinomyces. Effects were most pronounced in the first three months of life and attenuated by 12 months in most cohorts. Only one study reported subsequent dental caries outcomes after early-life microbiota assessment, finding that Streptococcus cristatus abundance at three months was associated with dental caries at nine years of age, and that longer breastfeeding duration (≥12 months) was associated with a distinct microbiota profile and lower caries rates in this single available longitudinal study. Risk of bias was low in two studies, moderate in six, and high in four. Publication bias could not be formally evaluated. Conclusions: Early feeding practices are associated with measurable differences in oral microbiota composition during infancy, particularly during the first months of life. However, evidence linking these microbiota differences to subsequent dental caries outcomes remains extremely limited, with only one included study assessing later caries development. Therefore, the clinical significance of feeding-associated microbiota profiles remains uncertain and should be investigated through well-designed prospective longitudinal studies.