Protocol for Northern Ireland Caries Prevention in Practice Trial (NIC-PIP) trial: a randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dental caries is a persistent public health problem with little change in the prevalence in young children over the last 20 years. Once a child contracts the disease it has a significant impact on their quality of life. There is good evidence from Cochrane reviews including trials that fluoride varnish and regular use of fluoride toothpaste can prevent caries.</p> <p>The Northern Ireland Caries Prevention in Practice Trial (NIC-PIP) trial will compare the costs and effects of a caries preventive package (fluoride varnish, toothpaste, toothbrush and standardised dental health education) with dental health education alone in young children.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A randomised controlled trial on children initially aged 2 and 3 years old who are regular attenders at the primary dental care services in Northern Ireland. Children will be recruited and randomised in dental practices. Children will be randomised to the prevention package of both fluoride varnish (twice per year for three years), fluoride toothpaste (1,450 ppm F) (supplied twice per year), a toothbrush (supplied twice a year) or not; both test and control groups receive standardised dental health education delivered by the dentist twice per year. Randomisation will be conducted by the Belfast Trust Clinical Research Support Centre ([CRSC] a Clinical Trials Unit).</p> <p>1200 participants will be recruited from approximately 40 dental practices. Children will be examined for caries by independent dental examiners at baseline and will be excluded if they have caries. The independent dental examiners will examine the children again at 3 years blinded to study group.</p> <p>The primary end-point is whether the child develops caries (cavitation into dentine) or not over the three years. One secondary outcome is the number of carious surfaces in the primary dentition in children who experience caries. Other secondary outcomes are episodes of pain, extraction of primary teeth, other adverse events and costs which will be obtained from parental questionnaires.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is a pragmatic trial conducted in general dental practice. It tests a composite caries prevention intervention, which represents an evidence based approach advocated by current guidance from the English Department of Health which is feasible to deliver to all low risk (caries free) children in general dental practice. The trial will provide valuable information to policy makers and clinicians on the costs and effects of caries prevention delivered to young children in general dental practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>EudraCT No: 2009 - 010725 - 39</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN36180119">ISRCTN36180119</a></p> <p>Ethics Reference No: 09/H1008/93:</p

Cost-Effectiveness of Caries Prevention in Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

A 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial measured the cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in caries-free children aged 2 to 3 y attending general practice. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland. Participants were centrally randomized into intervention (22,600 ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, a 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized prevention advice) and control (advice only), both provided at 6-monthly intervals during a 3-y follow-up. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states assessed by calibrated and blinded examiners; secondary outcome measures included decayed, missing, or filled teeth surfaces (dmfs); pain; and extraction. Cumulative costs were related to each of the trial's outcomes in a series of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses examined the impact of using dentist's time as measured by observation rather than that reported by the dentist. The costs of applying topical fluoride were also estimated assuming the work was undertaken by dental nurses or hygienists rather than dentists. A total of 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. The mean difference in direct health care costs between groups was £107.53 (£155.74 intervention, £48.21 control, P < 0.05) per child. When all health care costs were compared, the intervention group's mean cost was £212.56 more than the control group (£987.53 intervention, £774.97 control, P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences in outcomes were only detected with respect to carious surfaces. The mean cost per carious surface avoided was estimated at £251 (95% confidence interval, £454.39-£79.52). Sensitivity analyses did not materially affect the study's findings. This trial raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of a fluoride-based intervention delivered at the practice level in the context of a state-funded dental service (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119)

Oral health behaviours of parents and young children in a practice-based caries prevention trial in Northern Ireland

Objectives: The NICPIP trial evaluated the costs and effects of a caries prevention intervention delivered to 2- to 3-year-old children attending dental practices in Northern Ireland. This supplementary study explored the oral health behaviours of children and their parents to help understand the reasons for the trial's findings. Methods: A mixed methods study that included a questionnaire completed by all parents (n\ua0=\ua01058) at the time they brought their child for the NICPIP final clinical assessment. The questionnaire collected data on frequency of toothbrushing and sugar consumption. Questionnaire data were analysed by trial group and caries status. Parents of trial participants (n\ua0=\ua042) were invited to take part in telephone interviews. Parents were purposively sampled according to trial group and whether or not their child developed caries. The interviews explored how and why oral health behaviours happened. Interview data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: The questionnaire data indicated that toothbrushing and between-meal sugar snacking were common in the majority of children. The children of parents who automatically reminded their child to brush their teeth were more likely to remain caries-free (Odds Ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.08, 1.41; P\ua0=.002). Frequency of sweet drink consumption was associated with the child developing caries (Odds Ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.79, 0.98; P\ua0=.021). The interview data showed that parents had positive attitudes towards brushing both in terms of perceived importance and expected outcomes. Attitudes towards sugar snacking were more complex, with parents reporting difficulties in controlling this behaviour. Sugar was described as being something that was “ever present” in children's lives. Conclusions: Toothbrushing was widely adopted from a young age, but between-meal sugar consumption was highly prevalent. The results suggest that effective family-level and population-level interventions are needed to reduce sugar consumption if substantial improvements in caries prevention are to be achieved