METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, matched pair, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Randomisation is performed using a computer-generated table with a 1:1 allocation comparing the SIMSP and the POHP involving 28 preschools in the Kampar district, Perak, Malaysia. The intervention consists of preschool visits by a group of dental therapists, in-class oral health lessons and daily toothbrushing conducted by class teacher, child home toothbrushing supervised by parents, and infographic oral health messages to parents. The control consists of the existing POHP that involves preschool visits by a group of dental therapists only. The trial lasts for 6 months. Primary outcome variable is the mean plaque score change after 6 months. To determine the feasibility of the SIMSP, a process evaluation will be conducted using the perspectives of dental therapists, teachers, and parents on the appropriateness, effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers to the SIMSP implementation as well as an audit trail to assess the trial intervention.

DISCUSSION: Cluster randomisation may lead to a random effect and cluster selection bias. These factors will be accounted for when analysing the data and interpreting the outcomes. The effectiveness of the SIMSP will be evaluated by comparing the results with those of the POHP.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 346 adult males aged 18 years old to 68 years old. Socio-demographic characteristics, oral hygiene practices, and shammah use history were surveyed by using a structured interview questionnaire. The clinical assessment for the presence or absence of periodontal pockets was assessed on the basis of community periodontal index. The chi-square test was used to assess significant differences in study groups in terms of the presence of periodontal pockets. Multivariable logistic regression was selected to assess potential associated factors with the development of periodontal pockets.

RESULTS: Among the 346 adult males, 248 (71.7 %), 30 (8.6 %), and 68 (19.7 %) males never used shammah, were former shammah users, and were current shammah users, respectively. The significant associated factors with the development of periodontal pocket were age group (30 years old and above) (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.03, 95 % CI: 1.13, 3.65; P = 0.018), low family income category (AOR = 2.35, 95 % CI: 1.39, 3.99; P = 0.001), former shammah user (AOR = 2.66, 95 %: CI: 1.15, 6.15; P = 0.022), and current shammah user (AOR = 6.62, 95 %: CI: 3.59, 12.21; P = 0.001).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was done among 253 children of 5-, 12-, and 15-year-olds living in various orphanage houses of Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Demographic data, and dietary and oral hygiene practices were collected through a structured questionnaire. Clinical examinations of children were conducted to assess oral health status and recorded in the World Health Organization oral health assessment form (1997). Stimulated saliva was collected for S. mutans and Lactobacilli levels. The statistical software, namely, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 19.0 was used for the analysis of the data.

RESULTS: The final data analysis included 253 children of which 116 (45.8%) were boys and 137 (54.2%) were girls. Overall, 140 (55.33%) children were caries-free and 113 (44.66%) children presented with caries (decayed/missing/filled surface >0). High levels of salivary microbiological counts (S. mutans and Lactobacilli), i.e., ≥105, stress the importance of necessary preventive oral health services. Treatment needs among orphan children showed that most of the children, i.e., 58 (22.9%), need preventive or caries-arresting care followed by 49 (19.4%) who require two-surface filling as an immediate measure.

CONCLUSION: From the results of our study, orphan children have low utilization of preventive and therapeutic oral health services. Urgent attention is required to plan a comprehensive dental health-care program to improve their oral health status.

Materials and methods: A total of 40 patients were recruited, (mean age = 23 years) and were assigned to low and moderate caries risk groups (n = 20). Eighty occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth were examined for early caries lesion visually and using SoproLife® at baseline and at a recall visit six months later. At baseline visit, patients were given oral hygiene education, fluoridated toothpaste for homecare and topical fluoride application. SoproLife® images acquired were analysed using Image J software version 1.50. Difference in the mean value of intensity of the red wavelength spectrum between baseline and recall visits, (ΔI), were analysed for both risk groups. ΔI for upper and lower first molar teeth were also analysed.

Results: Results show no statistical difference for ΔI between low and moderate risk groups (p = 0.13). There is no statistical difference in ΔI within the low caries risk group (p = 0.42) but there is significant difference in the moderate risk group (p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference in ΔI value between upper first molars (UFM) (p = 0.80) and lower first molars (LFM) (p = 0.07) were detected. There was also no statistically significant difference in ΔI value within the upper and lower first molars (UFM: p = 0.31, LFM: p = 0.27).

Methods: The posterior parts of the archwires were sectioned into 20 mm segments (N = 102) and divided among six groups. Four groups were treated with different pH levels and two served as controls. The specimens were immersed in individual test tubes containing 10 ml of artificial saliva adjusted to a pH of 6.75 or 3.5. The tubes were sealed and stored in a 37 °C water bath for 28 days. After 28 days, the specimens were ligated to brackets embedded in an acrylic block and subjected to mechanical stress using an electronic toothbrush for 210 s. The specimens were photographed, and images were measured for coating loss using AutoCAD® software. Surface morphology was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 400 pregnant women who were selected using stratified random sampling technique from eight private maternity centers located in Indore city. A questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic characteristics, oral hygiene practices, previous dental visit and past medical history. OHRQOL was assessed using Oral Health Impact Profile-14 questionnaire. Lifestyle factors were assessed using the Health practice Index.

Results: The lifestyle factors were the strongest predictor for poor OHRQOL. The pregnant women (OR = 3.22, P-value < 0.0001*) with poor lifestyle had significantly poor OHRQOL. Logistic regression analysis showed that poor socio-economic status (OR = 2.63, P-value = 0.025*), brushing frequency of less than or equal to once daily (OR = 2.02, P-value = 0.025*), and suffering from systemic diseases (OR = 2.11, P-value = 0.017*) were other important predictors for poor OHRQOL in pregnant women.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.

METHODS: We recruited long-stay inpatients with schizophrenia from June to October 2014. Four dental specialists assessed oral health using the decayed-missing-filled teeth index, the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs and the Debris Index of the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. Results were compared with the 2010 Oral Health survey of the general Malaysian population.

METHODS: A double-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial was carried out. The intervention group received oral care with chlorhexidine 0.2%, while the control group received routine oral care with thymol. Nurses provided oral care with assigned solutions of 20 mL once daily over seven days. Oral cavity assessment using the Brief Oral Health Status Examination form was performed before each oral care procedure. Data on medication received and the subsequent development of aspiration pneumonia was recorded. An oral swab was performed on Day 7 to obtain specimens to test for colonisation.

RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 35 (control) and 43 (intervention) patients. Chlorhexidine was effective in reducing oral colonisation compared to routine oral care with thymol (p < 0.001). The risk of oral bacterial colonisation was nearly three times higher in the thymol group compared to the chlorhexidine group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 smokers and 100 nonsmokers ages 18-50 years were recruited for this study in Kota Bharu, Malaysia. Oral hygiene (good/fair vs poor) was determined using the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index, and the halitosis level was measured using a Halimeter. Subjects were instructed to refrain from consuming foods containing garlic, onions, strong spices, alcohol and using mouthwashes 48 h prior to the examination. The halitosis levels were quantified by recording volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) three times at 3-min intervals, resulting in a mean halitosis score. Various statistical analyses were performed, ranging from simple frequency analysis to multivariable modelling.

RESULTS: The proportions of subjects with poor oral hygiene and high halitosis were 24.0% and 41.5%, respectively. According to bivariate analyses, both problems were significantly less frequent among younger adults (halitosis), females, subjects with higher education, those with adequate habits to maintain good oral hygiene, those who had recent dental visits and those self-reporting fewer health problems. The percentages of poor oral hygiene and high halitosis were significantly higher in smokers (p < 0.001). However, almost all these variables failed to show significance in the multivariate analyses, with the exceptions of smoking for both poor oral hygiene and halitosis, education for poor oral hygiene, and age, self-reported health problems and time since the previous dental visit for halitosis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes were assessed in 47 patients with 88 LD crowns using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates. The questionnaire for predictors included 3 aspects: (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) oral health habits (tooth brushing frequency, flossing frequency, and dental visits), and (c) satisfaction of the restorations (aesthetics, function, fit, cleansability, and chewing ability of the crowns, and overall satisfaction). Frequency distributions were computed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The Student t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare means across variables. Correlation analysis was done to assess the association between continuous variables.

RESULTS: The age of crowns was 34.7 ± 9.7 months. The survival rate was 96.6% at 35.9 ± 9.2 months. There was a significant association between successful crown function and oral hygiene measures: tooth brushing (p˂ 0.001), dental visits (p = 0.006), and flossing (p = 0.009). A strong negative correlation was observed between aesthetic satisfaction (r = -0.717, p˂ 0.001) and chewing ability (r = -0.639, p˂ 0.001) with crown age. The linear regression model was significant for all predictors (p < 0.05) except overall satisfaction (p > 0.05).