METHODS: Secondary data analyses used subnational epidemiological samples of 11- to 14-year-olds in Australia (N = 372), New Zealand (three samples: 352, 202, 429), Brunei (423), Cambodia (244), Hong Kong (542), Malaysia (439), Thailand (220, 325), England (88, 374), Germany (1055), Mexico (335) and Brazil (404). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the factor structure of the CPQ11-14 across the combined sample and within four regions (Australia/NZ, Asia, UK/Europe and Latin America). Item impact and internal reliability analysis were also conducted.
RESULTS: Caries experience varied, with mean DMFT scores ranging from 0.5 in the Malaysian sample to 3.4 in one New Zealand sample. Even more variation was noted in the proportion reporting only fair or poor oral health; this was highest in the Cambodian and Mexican samples and lowest in the German sample and one New Zealand sample. One in 10 reported that their oral health had a marked impact on their life overall. The CFA across all samples revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first involved all items in the oral symptoms and functional limitations subscales; the second involved all emotional well-being and social well-being items. The first was designated the 'symptoms/function' subscale, and the second was designated the 'well-being' subscale. Cronbach's alpha scores were 0.72 and 0.84, respectively. The symptoms/function subscale contained more of the items with greater impact, with the item 'Food stuck in between your teeth' having greatest impact; in the well-being subscale, the 'Felt shy or embarrassed' item had the greatest impact. Repeating the analyses by world region gave similar findings.
CONCLUSION: The CPQ11-14 performed well cross-sectionally in the largest analysis of the scale in the literature to date, with robust and mostly consistent psychometric characteristics, albeit with two underlying factors (rather than the originally hypothesized four-factor structure). It appears to be a sound, robust measure which should be useful for research, practice and policy.
METHODS: Dentists were recruited through two main dental associations in Malaysia and attended a 1-day training session on recognizing abnormalities within the oral cavity. Following the training, the dentists conducted screening and provided risk habits cessation advice at their respective clinics for 6 months. The impact of the program was evaluated by determining the number of patients who were screened and/or provided with risk habits cessation advice.
RESULTS: Twenty-six dentists took part in the program and conducted opportunistic screening on a total of 2603 individuals. On average, they screened about 23.0% of their patients and 5.1% were given risk habits cessation advice. Notably, dentists who had lower patient load were more likely to conduct opportunistic screening.
CONCLUSIONS: While the participating private dentists state that they have a role in performing opportunistic screening and providing risk habits cessation advice, these activities are still not a priority area in the private clinics, strongly suggesting that strategies to motivate dentists in this setting are urgently needed.
METHODS: Screening periodontal examinations were carried out on all eligible Malay pregnant women in the second trimester of pregnancy attending two randomly selected community maternal and child health clinics in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Patients with four or more sites with pocket depth 4 mm or higher, and clinical attachment loss 3 mm or higher at the same site with presence of bleeding on probing were diagnosed as having periodontitis in this study. Using this definition, systematic random sampling was utilized for selection of 250 subjects for each exposed and non-exposed group. Of 500 subjects enrolled in the study, 28 (5.6%) were either dropped or lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 472 subjects, 232 with periodontitis were in the exposed group and 240 with healthy periodontium were in the nonexposed group.
RESULTS: The incidence of LBW was 14.2% (95% CI: 9.70-18.75) in women with periodontitis, and 3.3% (95% CI: 1.05-5.62) in women without periodontitis. The relative risk of having LBW infants was 4.27 times higher for women with periodontitis compared with those without periodontitis (95% CI: 2.01-9.04). After adjustment for potential confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis, significant association was found between maternal periodontitis and LBW (OR = 3.84; 95% CI: 1.34-11.05).
CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide additional evidence that pregnant women with periodontitis are at a significantly higher risk of delivering LBW infants.
METHODS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study design was used to recruit a purposive sample of foster carers in Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom, from a range of backgrounds (maximum variation sampling). Participants were aged 21 years and older and provided full-time foster care for children for a minimum of 1 year. The foster carers took part in focus groups that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed a five-step IPA process, which included reading the transcripts, note taking, identifying emerging themes, connecting related themes and writing up the final themes. Iterative data gathering and analysis continued to reach thematic saturation.
RESULTS: Three focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 12 foster carers. Eight of the 12 participants had fostered children for more than 10 years and they were currently fostering 22 children aged five to 18 years old. Four themes emerged from within the context of the supportive and nurturing foster family environment that described how foster carers' responded to and managed the oral health of their foster children. Foster carers had adopted an oral health caregiving role, "in loco parentis" responding to the poor oral health of their vulnerable foster children. They were hypervigilant about establishing and monitoring children's oral health routines and taking their children to see a dentist; these were seen as an integral part of being good foster carers. They were knowledgeable about the causes of children's oral ill health, gained from their own dental experiences and from looking after their own children. Foster carers had experienced tensions while adopting this oral health caregiving role with dentists who had refused to see younger children. Foster carers had also experienced tensions with teenage foster children who questioned their parental authority and legitimate right to set rules about smoking and healthy eating.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore foster carers' oral health perspectives and the foster family environment within the oral health context. It highlights the unrecognized and important role that foster carers have in improving the oral health of vulnerable children. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between foster carers and dentists and to support the development of health and social care interventions to improve foster children's oral health.
METHODS: This study involved lifelong residents aged 9- and 12-year-olds in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas in Malaysia (n = 1155). In the fluoridated area, children aged 12 years and 9 years were exposed to 0.7 and 0.5 ppm, respectively, at the times when maxillary central incisors developed. Standardized photographs of maxillary central incisors were blind scored for fluorosis using Dean's criteria. Dental caries was examined using ICDAS-II criteria.
RESULTS: The prevalence of fluorosis (Dean's score ≥ 2) among children in the fluoridated area (35.7%, 95% CI: 31.9%-39.6%) was significantly higher (P
METHODS: This review aims to identify the labels and associated descriptors used by practitioners to describe DBS techniques, as a first step in developing a shared terminology for DBS techniques. Following registration of a protocol, a scoping review limited to Clinical Practice Guidelines only was undertaken to identify the labels and descriptors used to refer to DBS techniques.
RESULTS: From 5317 screened records, 30 were included, generating a list of 51 distinct DBS techniques. General anaesthesia was the most commonly reported DBS (n = 21). This review also explores what term is given to DBS techniques as a group (Behaviour management was most commonly used (n = 8)) and how these techniques were categorized (mainly distinguishing between pharmacological and non-pharmacological).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to generate a list of techniques that can be selected for patients and marks an initial step in future efforts at agreeing and categorizing these techniques into an accepted taxonomy, with all the benefits this brings to research, education, practice and patients.
METHODS: Following a registered protocol, a modified e-Delphi study was applied over two rounds with a final consensus meeting. The threshold of consensus was set a priori at 75%. Agreed techniques were then categorized by four coders, according to behavioural learning theory, to sort techniques according to their mechanism of action.
RESULTS: The panel (n = 35) agreed on 42 DBS techniques from a total of 63 candidate labels and descriptions. Complete agreement was achieved regarding all labels and descriptions, while agreement was not achieved regarding distinctiveness for 17 techniques. In exploring underlying principles of learning, it became clear that multiple and differing principles may apply depending on the specific context and procedure in which the technique may be applied.
DISCUSSION: Experts agreed on what each DBS technique is, what label to use, and their description, but were less likely to agree on what distinguishes one technique from another. All techniques were describable but not comprehensively categorizable according to principles of learning. While objective consistency was not attained, greater clarity and consistency now exists. The resulting list of agreed terminology marks a significant foundation for future efforts towards understanding DBS techniques in research, education and clinical care.