METHODS: A sample of 158 preschool children with ECC awaiting dental treatment under GA was recruited over an 8-month period. Parents self-completed the Malay-ECOHIS before and 4 weeks after their child's dental treatment. At 4 weeks follow-up, parents also responded to a global health transition judgement item. Data were analysed using independent and paired samples t tests, ANOVA and Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: The response rate was 87.3%. The final sample comprised 76 male (55.1%) and 62 female (44.9%) preschool children with mean age of 4.5 (SD = 1.0) years. Following treatment, there were significant reductions in mean scores for total Malay-ECOHIS, child impact section (CIS), family impact section (FIS) and all domains, respectively (P dental treatment of ECC under GA.
METHOD: This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2020) statement. The initial electronic search yielded a total of 3710 articles. The search identified 2354 potential papers after removing duplicates and 2301 articles were excluded by title and abstract. The full texts of the remaining 53 articles and nine articles from the citation searching were screened and 15 articles matched the inclusion criteria. The Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis resulted in four main themes which were educational intervention, physical intervention, clinical intervention, and a combination of both educational and clinical intervention.
CONCLUSION: We presented the findings in a narrative synthesis with the primary outcomes which served as answers to our main research question that prompted this systematic review.
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.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study involved 245 students enrolled in the first year medical (M1) and dental (D1) course and fourth year medical (M4) and dental (D4) course. The students completed a self-administered questionnaire which included knowledge and opinions on early childhood oral health. Comparisons between the groups were done using chi-square test.
RESULTS: Dental students showed significantly better knowledge than medical students. D1 students showed significantly better knowledge of age of first tooth eruption over M1. Knowledge of recommended age for bottle weaning was higher among D4 students but not significantly more than M4 students.
CONCLUSION: The majority of medical students showed inadequate knowledge indicating that medical curriculum should emphasise on oral health topics of public health relevance like ECC and its prevention. Dental students had better knowledge regarding early childhood oral health, but lacked knowledge on its preventive aspects.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental home visits and oral health information, in the form of educational leaflets, in preventing new caries development in young children, compared to those receiving only educational leaflets over a period of two years. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental home visits.
METHODS: This is a collaborative project with the Oral Health Division of the Ministry of Health Malaysia. The Oral Health Division will provide access to a subsample from the National Oral Health of Preschoolers Survey which was carried out in 2015. The population of interest is children aged 5 and 6 years from kindergartens in the Selangor state of Malaysia. The study adopted a societal perspective for cost-effectiveness analysis and all types of resources that are of value to society will be included in analyzing the costs; such as cost to the patient, cost to the provider or institution, and indirect costs because of loss of productivity.
RESULTS: The trial has been approved by the International Medical University Malaysia's Joint Research and Ethics Committee (Project ID: IMU R157-2014 [File III - 2016]). This trial is currently recruiting participants.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of young children in Malaysia who have been referred to the hospital children's dentistry service for severe caries is disturbing. The cost of dental treatment in young children is high due to the severity of the caries which require an aggressive treatment, and the need for general anesthesia or sedation. This study will provide information on the cost and effectiveness of DHVs in caries prevention of young children in Malaysia.
REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10053.
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.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Parents are the primary caretakers of children, but woefully some of them have to lead their lives without parents, the latter either being dead or incapable of bringing up their children. Such a group of children is known as orphans. As oral health is an integral part of general health, it is essential for health-care policy makers to address oral health needs of this underprivileged group of society. This article highlights the risk factors and treatment needs among orphan schoolchildren.