Materials and Methods: The main health databases were selected such as SCOPUS, Medline, CINAHL, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences. A set of keywords was defined to identify the relevant article were (i.e., Snoezelen OR Multisensory OR sensory-adapted and Dentistry OR Oral). The articles were selected and extracted by two reviewers based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines and some predetermined exclusion criteria. Furthermore, the risk of bias assessment was done.
Results: A total of 317 papers were selected at the first phase from SCOPUS (97 papers), Medline (108 papers), CINAHL (110 papers), and Dentistry and Oral Sciences (2 papers). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and duplicated papers were removed, only four eligible papers were selected for final synthesis.
Conclusions: Multisensory-adapted dental environment effectively improves oral health behavior among special needs children in terms of physiological changes, behaviors, pain, and sensory discomfort. Thus, the clinician may introduce this approach in their clinical settings.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate evidence about bruxism and its management in individuals with ASD and DS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The researchers performed an electronic search using keywords on three databases, reference lists and complemented by manual searching from January 2000 to February 2023 to find out the relevant documents. An extensive literature review using the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis" method was carried out. PICO parameters were formulated, and studies risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI critical appraisal checklist tool for case reports.
RESULTS: Out of 527 documents, 8 case studies and one review paper were identified as final articles for data synthesis. The findings showed, bruxism was reduced for all the participants with ASD and DS after implementation of functional analysis or dental treatment.
CONCLUSION: The current SR found that despite the positive results of all the studies, there was a lack of evidence due to a limited number of studies and only case studies were conducted through functional analysis and dental treatment.
NOVELTY: This SR is the first study on bruxism treatments in individuals with ASD and DS that included all the available studies (n = 9) since last 23 years and the first study that specifically addresses the incorporation of case reports in a systemic review.
METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.
METHODS: The study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the opinions of secondary school students on the SDS implementation in their schools. Data from focus group discussions involving Form Two (14-year-olds) and Form Four (16-year-olds) students from the selected schools were transcribed verbatim and coded using the NVivo software before framework method analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Among the strengths of the SDS were the convenience for students to undergo annual oral examination and dental treatment without having to visit dental clinics outside the school. The SDS also reduced possible financial burdens resulting from dental treatment costs, especially among students from low-income families. Furthermore, SDS helped to improve oral health awareness. However, the oral health education provided by the SDS personnel was deemed infrequent while the content and method of delivery were perceived to be less interesting. The poor attitude of the SDS personnel was also reported by the students.
CONCLUSION: The SDS provides effective and affordable dental care to secondary school students. However, the oral health promotion and education activities need to be improved to keep up with the evolving needs of the target audience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ADDIE model was applied to plan and create a learning activity fulfilling the learning objectives of this subject. This process involved analysing (A), designing (D), developing (D), and implementing (I) the instruction based on standardised guidelines and approved curriculum content. The GNEI model was incorporated at the design (D) stage to enhance students' learning experiences via various stimuli and exercises. The learning activity was evaluated (E) through students' written reflections on their learning experiences. Qualitative data on students' reflections was analysed via thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A workshop comprising case-based discussion, demonstration, simulation exercises, and practical training involving six scenarios relating to patients with SHCN was developed. Students found that the session was beneficial in improving their understanding of SCD as it supplemented what was taught in the lectures. The cases discussed were relevant to their daily practice, and the resources developed were useful and reliable. The demonstration, practical, and simulation exercises provided hands-on learning experiences and helped instil disability awareness. Students felt prepared for examinations and clinical practice following this activity.
CONCLUSION: Applying the integrated model ensures effective and structured teaching of SCD for undergraduate students.
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.