The Hall Technique 10 years on: its effect and influence

Dental caries in early childhood can have a very significant effect not only on the oral health of young children but on their quality of life and that of their families. Added to this are the long-term infective risks to the host of untreated caries in primary teeth but also the risk of damage to successor permanent teeth. Traditional restoration of damaged primary teeth has been shown to have only moderate outcomes depending on the techniques and materials used and the ability of children to cooperate because of age or other factors. The Hall technique has outperformed other techniques in randomised clinical trials. In this Opinion Article I will take a look back at the Innes et al. paper, first published in this Journal in 2006, that introduced the Hall Technique and the subsequent scientific literature which provided us with high quality scientific evidence of the efficacy of the technique. I will evaluate how this new technique has affected the management of early childhood caries and hence its influence on wider oral and general health

Assessment of the quality of measures of child oral health-related quality of life

Background Several measures of oral health-related quality of life have been developed for children. The most frequently used are the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ), the Child Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (C-OIDP) and the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP). The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality of the development and testing of these three measures. Methods A systematic search strategy was used to identify eligible studies published up to December 2012, using both MEDLINE and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts were read independently by two investigators and full papers retrieved where the inclusion criteria were met. Data were extracted by two teams of two investigators using a piloted protocol. The data were used to describe the development of the measures and their use against existing criteria. The methodological quality and measurement properties of the measures were assessed using standards proposed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group. Results The search strategy yielded 653 papers, of which 417 were duplicates. Following analysis of the abstracts, 119 papers met the inclusion criteria. The majority of papers reported cross-sectional studies (n = 117) with three of longitudinal design. Fifteen studies which had used the original version of the measures in their original language were included in the COSMIN analysis. The most frequently used measure was the CPQ. Reliability and construct validity appear to be adequate for all three measures. Children were not fully involved in item generation which may compromise their content validity. Internal consistency was measured using classic test theory with no evidence of modern psychometric techniques being used to test unidimensionality of the measures included in the COSMIN analysis. Conclusion The three measures evaluated appear to be able to discriminate between groups. CPQ has been most widely tested and several versions are available. COHIP employed a rigorous development strategy but has been tested in fewer populations. C-OIDP is shorter and has been used successfully in epidemiological studies. Further testing using modern psychometric techniques such as item response theory is recommended. Future developments should also focus on the development of measures which can evaluate longitudinal change

A survey of cariology teaching in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND: The Australian and New Zealand chapter of the Alliance for a Cavity Free Future was launched in 2013 and one of its primary aims was to conduct a survey of the local learning and teaching of cariology in dentistry and oral health therapy programs. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed using the framework of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA)/Association of Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) cariology survey conducted in Europe in 2009. The questionnaire was comprised of multiple choice and open-ended questions exploring many aspects of the cariology teaching. The survey was distributed to the cariology curriculum coordinator of each of the 21 programs across Australia and New Zealand via Survey Monkey in January 2015. Simple analysis of results was carried out with frequencies and average numbers of hours collated and open-ended responses collected and compiled into tables. RESULTS: Seventeen responses from a total of 21 programs had been received including 7 Dentistry and 10 Oral Health programs. Key findings from the survey were - one quarter of respondents indicated that cariology was identified as a specific discipline with their course and 41% had a cariology curriculum in written format. With regard to lesion detection and caries diagnosis, all of the program coordinators who responded indicated that visual/tactile methods and radiographic interpretation were recommended with ICDAS also being used by over half them. Despite all respondents teaching early caries lesion management centred on prevention and remineralisation, many taught operative intervention at an earlier stage of lesion depth than current evidence supports. Findings showed over 40% of respondents still teach operative intervention for lesions confined to enamel. CONCLUSION: Despite modern theoretical concepts of cariology being taught in Australia and New Zealand, they do not appear to be fully translated into clinical teaching at the present time

Microbial differences between dental plaque and historic dental calculus are related to oral biofilm maturation stage

Background: Dental calculus, calcified oral plaque biofilm, contains microbial and host biomolecules that can be used to study historic microbiome communities and host responses. Dental calculus does not typically accumulate as much today as historically, and clinical oral microbiome research studies focus primarily on living dental plaque biofilm. However, plaque and calculus reflect different conditions of the oral biofilm, and the differences in microbial characteristics between the sample types have not yet been systematically explored. Here, we compare the microbial profiles of modern dental plaque, modern dental calculus, and historic dental calculus to establish expected differences between these substrates. Results: Metagenomic data was generated from modern and historic calculus samples, and dental plaque metagenomic data was downloaded from the Human Microbiome Project. Microbial composition and functional profile were assessed. Metaproteomic data was obtained from a subset of historic calculus samples. Comparisons between microbial, protein, and metabolomic profiles revealed distinct taxonomic and metabolic functional profiles between plaque, modern calculus, and historic calculus, but not between calculus collected from healthy teeth and periodontal disease-affected teeth. Species co-exclusion was related to biofilm environment. Proteomic profiling revealed that healthy tooth samples contain low levels of bacterial virulence proteins and a robust innate immune response. Correlations between proteomic and metabolomic profiles suggest co-preservation of bacterial lipid membranes and membrane-associated proteins. Conclusions: Overall, we find that there are systematic microbial differences between plaque and calculus related to biofilm physiology, and recognizing these differences is important for accurate data interpretation in studies comparing dental plaque and calculus.</p