EC Paediatrics

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has become a cornerstone of modern healthcare, integrating the best available scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient values to optimize treatment outcomes. In pediatric dentistry, the application of EBP presents unique challenges and opportunities in the 21st century. Rapid advancements in preventive strategies, minimally invasive techniques, behavior management approaches, and dental materials have expanded the scope of pediatric oral healthcare. However, translating research findings into routine clinical practice remains complex due to variability in study quality, limited pediatric-specific data, ethical constraints in conducting randomized controlled trials in children, and disparities in access to care. Challenges also include clinician resistance to change, time constraints, inadequate training in critical appraisal skills, and the need to balance evidence with individual child factors such as developmental stage, cooperation level, and parental expectations. Furthermore, emerging technologies, digital dentistry, and evolving disease patterns demand continuous updating of clinical knowledge. Despite these barriers, significant opportunities exist. The growth of systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and digital databases enhances accessibility to high-quality evidence. Interprofessional collaboration, improved research methodologies, and incorporation of EBP principles into dental education strengthen clinical decision-making. Additionally, patient-centered care models and shared decision-making align closely with the philosophy of EBP, particularly in pediatric populations where family involvement is essential. This paper explores the current challenges hindering the implementation of evidence-based practice in pediatric dentistry while highlighting strategies and future directions to bridge the gap between research and clinical application, ultimately aiming to improve oral health outcomes for children in the 21st century.

Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP); Pediatric Dentistry; 21st Century, Clinical Decision Making

1. Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study. “Prevalence and architecture of de novo mutations in developmental disorders”. Nature 7642 (2017): 433-438.
2. Sato S., et al. “A set of consensus mammalian mediator subunits identified by multidimensional protein identification technology”. Molecular Cell 5 (2004): 685-691.
3. The Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study. “Large-scale discovery of novel genetic causes of developmental disorders”. Nature 7542 (2015): 223-228.
4. Asadollahi R., et al. “Genotype-phenotype evaluation of MED13L defects in the light of a novel truncating and a recurrent missense mutation”. European Journal of Medical Genetics 9 (2017): 451-464.
5. Muncke, N., et al. “Missense mutations and gene interruption in PROSIT240, a novel TRAP240-like gene, in patients with congenital heart defect (transposition of the great arteries)”. Circulation23 (2003): 2843-2850.
6. Najmabadi H., et al. “Deep sequencing reveals 50 novel genes for recessive cognitive disorders”. Nature 478 (2011): 57-63.
7. Asadollahi R., et al. “Dosage changes of MED13L further delineate its role in congenital heart defects and intellectual disability”. European Journal of Human Genetics 10 (2013): 1100-1104.
8. Cafiero C., et al. “Novel de novo heterozygous loss-of-function variants in MED13L and further delineation of the MED13L haploinsufficiency syndrome”. European Journal of Human Genetics 11 (2015): 1499-1504.
9. Utami KH., et al. “Impaired development of neural-crest cell derived organs and intellectual disability caused by MED13L haploinsufficiency”. Human Mutation 11 (2014): 1311-1320.
10. Genomics England. Personal Communication (2024).
11. Shamsani, J., et al. “A plugin for the Ensembl variant effect predictor that uses MaxEntScan to predict variant spliceogenicity”. Bioinformatics13 (2019): 2315-2317.
12. Smol T., et al. “MED13L-related intellectual disability: involvement of missense variants and delineation of the phenotype”. Neurogenetics 2 (2018): 93-103.
13. Van Haelst MM., et al. “Further confirmation of the MED13L haploinsufficiency syndrome”. European Journal of Human Genetics 1 (2015): 135-138.
14. Mullegama SV., et al. “Coupling clinical exome sequencing with functional characterization studies to diagnose a patient with familial Mediterranean fever and MED 13L haploinsufficiency syndromes”. Clinical Case Reports 6 (2017): 833-840.
15. Maia N., et al. “Can the synergic contribution of multigenic variants explain the clinical and cellular phenotypes of a neurodevelopmental disorder?” Genes1 (2021): 78.
16. Teles E Silva AL., et al. “Rare CACNA1H and RELN variants interact through mTORC1 pathway in oligogenic autism spectrum disorder”. Translational Psychiatry 1 (2022): 234.
17. Wang T., et al. “Rare variants and the oligogenic architecture of autism”. Trends in Genetics 9 (2022): 895-903.
18. # 615485 BAINBRIDGE-ROPERS SYNDROME; BRPS.
19. A0A1W2PQS2 · A0A1W2PQS2_HUMAN.
20. *300522 IQ MOTIF- AND SEC7 DOMAIN-CONTAINING PROTEIN 2; IQSEC2.
21. Kalscheuer VM., et al. “Novel missense mutation A789V in IQSEC2 underlies X-linked intellectual disability in the MRX78 family”. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 8 (2016): 85.
22. Brea-Calvo G., et al. “COQ4 mutations cause a broad spectrum of mitochondrial disorders associated with CoQ10 deficiency”. American Journal of Human Genetics 2 (2015): 309-317.
23. Adegbola A., et al. “Redefining the MED13L syndrome”. European Journal of Human Genetics 10 (2015): 1308-1317.
24. Chen E., et al. “Rates and classification of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary disease genetic testing”. JAMA Network Open 10 (2023): e2339571.
25. Genomics England: Public Data Browser. Self-defined Demographic information across all Genomics England Projects.
26. Genomics England - Public Data Browser. Types of rare diseases in the 100k Genomes rare disease group.
27. Genomics England - Public Data Browser. Overview of disorders of psychological development (F80-F89) in the 100k Genomes rare disease cohort.
28. Richards S., et al. “Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology”. Genetics in Medicine 17 (2015): 405-424.