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.
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: 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: 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.