24 research outputs found

    Oral health promotion: the economic benefits to the NHS of increased use of sugarfree gum in the UK.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: The effect of sugarfree gum (SFG) on the prevention of dental caries has been established for some time. With increased constraints placed on healthcare budgets, the importance of economic considerations in decision-making about oral health interventions has increased. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the potential cost savings in dental care associated with increased levels of SFG usage. METHODS: The analysis examined the amount of money which would hypothetically be saved if the UK 12-year-old population chewed more SFG. The number of sticks chewed per year and the caries risk reduction were modelled to create a dose response curve. The costs of tooth restoration, tooth extraction in primary care settings and under general anaesthetic were considered, and the effects of caries reduction on these costs calculated. RESULTS: If all members of the UK 12-year-old population chewed SFG frequently (twice a day), the potential cost savings for the cohort over the course of one year were estimated to range from £1.2 to £3.3 million and if they chewed three times a day, £8.2 million could be saved each year. Sensitivity analyses of the key parameters demonstrated that cost savings would still be likely to be observed even in scenarios with less significant increases in SFG use. CONCLUSION: This study shows that if levels of SFG usage in the teenage population in the UK could be increased, substantial cost savings might be achieved

    Oral health promotion: Oral health or social scourge

    No full text

    The efficacy of baking soda dentifrice in controlling plaque and gingivitis: A systematic review

    Get PDF
    Objective: To test the efficacy of a dentifrice containing baking soda (BS), compared with dentifrice without BS for controlling plaque and gingivitis.Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane‐CENTRAL were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled clinical trials including healthy participants aged 18 years or older. Studies were selected that compared the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice with and without BS on the clinical parameters of plaque and gingivitis. Data were extracted from the selected studies, and a meta‐analysis was performed.Results: The search retrieved 21 eligible publications. Among these papers, 43 comparisons were provided, with 23 involving a single‐use design and 20 being evaluations with a follow‐up. Negative controls were found, or positive controls for which various active ingredients had been used. The included studies showed a moderate overall potential risk of bias and considerable heterogeneity. The meta‐analysis of plaque scores from the single‐brushing experiments showed that BS dentifrice (BS‐DF) was associated with significantly better outcomes than the negative control dentifrices (DiffM −0.20; P < 0.0001; 95% CI: [−0.27; −0.12]) or the positive control dentifrices (DiffM −0.18; P < 0.0001; 95% CI: [−0.24; −0.12]). This finding was only confirmed in studies that used a follow‐up design as compared to a negative control (DiffM −0.19; P = 0.01; 95% CI: [−0.34; −0.04]). The indices of gingival bleeding also improved when the comparison was a negative control (DiffM −0.08; P = 0.02; 95% CI: [−0.16; −0.01] and (DiffM −0.13; P < 0.001; 95% CI: [−0.18; −0.08]. However, for the gingival index scores, the meta‐analysis did not reveal any significant differences.Conclusion: BS‐DF showed promising results with respect to plaque removal in single‐use studies. However, the finding was partially substantiated in follow‐up studies. Studies that assessed bleeding scores indicated that a small reduction can be expected from BS, relative to a control product
    corecore