Is personal oral hygiene advice effective in preventing coronal dental caries?

Data sources PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Study selection PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published in English between January 1950 and February 2017. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and risk of bias assessed using a modified Jadad scale. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the chi-squared statistic and meta-analysis performed. Results Three randomised trials were included, involving 681 participants; all children 10-13 years old. Two trials were conducted in the USA and one in the UK. Two studies tested school-based, daily supervised oral hygiene (including plaque staining and removal and supervised flossing) against control groups; one study tested the same intervention every two weeks against controls. Two studies measured decayed, missing or filled surfaces (DMFS) scores at three years and one trial at 29 months. Personal oral hygiene interventions failed to influence the incidence of dental caries, (DMFS = -0.11; 95% CI -0.91, 0.69: P value <0.79). Four non-randomised trials were retained to conduct sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Personal oral hygiene interventions delivered to school children failed to show a reduction in coronal dental carious lesion incidence over three years when compared to control groups

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of MedicinePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Development of a root caries prediction model in a population of dental attenders

Acknowledgement This study was conducted as part of the doctoral thesis of P.A.F. We would like to thank the participating dental practice teams and patients without whose valuable contribution this study could not have taken place. We would like to thank our colleagues in the INTERVAL Trial team Funding INTERVAL was funded by the NIHR HTA programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)]. No additional funding was obtained to conduct the prediction study presented in this paper. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Development of a Root Caries Prediction Model in a Population of Dental Attenders

Acknowledgement This study was conducted as part of the doctoral thesis of P.A.F. We would like to thank the participating dental practice teams and patients without whose valuable contribution this study could not have taken place. We would like to thank our colleagues in the INTERVAL Trial team Funding INTERVAL was funded by the NIHR HTA programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)]. No additional funding was obtained to conduct the prediction study presented in this paper. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of sealants in preventing pit and fissure caries in primary molars.</p

INTERVAL (investigation of NICE technologies for enabling risk-variable-adjusted-length) dental recalls trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the best dental recall interval for optimum, cost-effective maintenance of oral health in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Background Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group’s systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. Methods This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. Discussion INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice