The relation of preventive dental behaviors to periodontal health status

. Current recommendations for periodontal health maintenance emphasize toothbrushing, flossing and periodic dental checkups. The purposes of this study were to examine (1) the effects of these practices on periodontal health and (2) the relationships of demographic and socioeconomic variables with these behaviors and with periodontal health. Adults ( n = 319) in the Detroit, Michigan tri-county area were asked how frequently they performed the 3 preventive behaviors. Levels of plaque, gingivitis, calculus, and periodontal attachment were then assessed during in-home dental examinations. There were no statistically significant differences in these health measures between those with acceptable and unacceptable brushing behavior. About 20% of the subjects reported acceptable flossing behavior, and these individuals had significantly less plaque and calculus than other participants. Over 3/4 of subjects reported having a dental checkup at least 1 × a year, and these persons were found to have significantly less plaque, gingivitis, and calculus compared to less frequent attenders. Acceptable brushing behavior was not associated with any particular demographic or socio-economic characteristic, while differences in acceptable flossing behavior were found among age groups. Frequencies of yearly dental checkups varied significantly within every demographic and socioeconomic characteristic.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75510/1/j.1600-051X.1994.tb00303.x.pd

A randomised controlled trial to explore attitudes to routine scale and polish and compare manual versus ultrasonic scaling in the general dental service in Scotland [ISRCTN99609795]

BACKGROUND: To investigate, within general dental practice, patients' and vocational dental practitioners' (VDP) attitudes towards the benefits and costs of a simple scale and polish and to compare the experience of using manual versus ultrasonic instruments to scale teeth. METHODS: 28 VDPs and 420 patients participated. Patients were randomly allocated to either group. Patients' and VDPs' attitudes towards, and experience of, the scale and polish were elicited by means of self-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: The majority of patients (99%) believed a scale and polish was beneficial. VDPs considered ultrasonic treatment to be appropriate on significantly more occasions than they did for manual scale and polish (P < 0.001). Patient discomfort: with ultrasonic scaling 69.2% felt 'a little uncomfortable' or worse compared with 60% of those undergoing manual treatment (P = 0.072). VDPs considered treatment charges were appropriate for 77% of patients. CONCLUSION: Routine scaling and polishing is considered beneficial by both patients and vocational trainees. The majority of patients, regardless of treatment method, experience some degree of discomfort when undergoing a scale and polish. VDPs showed a preference for the ultrasonic treatment method

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. METHODS: We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1-5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1-6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. RESULTS: Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = -0.013; P = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues