The resin-based pit and fissure sealant is considered a successful tool in caries prevention, however there is a growing evidence of its use in controlling already established caries in posterior teeth. The aim of this clinical trial is to verify the efficacy of pit and fissure sealants in arresting dentinal caries lesions compared to partial excavation and restorative treatment in primary molar teeth.

Background: Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and the Hall Technique (HT) are both minimally invasive, non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs). They seem to have never been directly compared, nor has the HT been studied in a non-clinical setting. This study compared the HT and ART restorations placed in a school setting after 36 months. Methods: Children (5–10 yo) who had a primary molar with a dentinal occluso-proximal, cavitated carious lesion were allocated to the ART (selective removal) or HT arms. Primary outcome: restoration survival over 36-months (using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, log rank test, and Cox regression). Secondary outcomes: (1) occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) (1, 2, 3, 4 weeks) and (2) child self-reported discomfort; (3) treatment acceptability (immediately following interventions); (4) Child Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL), before treatment and after 6 months and (5) a post hoc analysis of time to tooth exfoliation (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 months). Results: One-hundred and thirty-one children (ART = 65; HT = 66) were included (mean age = 8.1 ± 1.2). At 36 months, 112 (85.5%) children were followed-up. Primary outcome: restoration survival rates ART = 32.7% (SE = 0.08; 95% CI 0.17–0.47); HT = 93.4% (0.05; 0.72–0.99), p < 0.001; Secondary outcomes: (1) OVD returned to pre-treatment state within 4 weeks; (2) treatment discomfort was higher for the HT (p = 0.018); (3) over 70% of children and parents showed a high acceptability for treatments, with crown aesthetics being a concern for around 23% of parents; (4) Child OHRQoL improved after 6 months; and (5) teeth treated with the HT exfoliated earlier than those in the ART group (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Both ART and the HT were acceptable to child participants and their parents and all parents thought both restorations protected their child’s tooth. However, the crown appearance concerned almost a quarter of parents in the HT arm. Children experienced less discomfort in the ART group. Although both treatments can be performed in a non-clinical setting and have the advantage of being non-aerosol generating procedures (non-AGPs), the HT had almost three times higher survival rates (93.4%) for restoring primary molar occluso-proximal cavities compared to ART (32.7%). Trial registration: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02569047), 5th October 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02569047?cond=Hall+Technique+Atraumatic+Rest orative+Treatment&draw=2&rank=2.

Objective Saliva can be used for screening and diagnostic purposes. Although multiple saliva collection methods are available, their use in children can be limited due to lack of cooperation, developmental stage, and age. The aim of this scoping review was to comprehensively appraise the different methods of saliva collection among both children and adolescents by assessing the available scientific literature. Methods A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies on saliva collection methods among children and adolescents were included for this review. Results The literature search identified 249 eligible articles, of which 205 had a cross-sectional study design. Four distinct saliva collection methods have surfaced: the drooling method, the absorption method, the spitting method, and the suction method. Among infants or children under the age of 6 years, the suction and absorption methods were most preferred. The drooling and spitting methods were only applicable among children above the age of 3 years. When children were not willing to cooperate, the absorption method was most feasible. In adolescents and older children, no specific method was found to be preferred over another method. Conclusion Overall, saliva collection is well tolerated by children and adolescents, with the absorption and suction methods being preferred with young and uncooperative children.