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: 5- to 6-year-olds attending kindergartens were randomized to receive either 6-month dental home visits and education leaflets (Intervention group) or education leaflets alone (Control group) over 24 months. To detect a 15% difference in caries incidence with a significance level of 5% and power of 80%, 88 children were calculated to be needed in the Intervention group and 88 in the Control. Baseline clinical data included oral examinations at the kindergartens. Follow-up visits were made on the 6th, 12th and 18th month. At the end of the 24 months, both the Intervention and Control groups were visited for oral examinations. The primary outcome was caries incidence, measured by the number and proportion of children who developed new caries in the primary molars after 24 months. The secondary outcome was the number of primary molars that developed new caries (d-pms). Frequency distributions of participants by baseline socio-demographic characteristics and caries experience were calculated. The chi-square test was used to test differences between the caries experience in the Intervention and Control groups. The t test was used to compare the mean number of primary molars developing new caries between the Intervention Group and the Control Group. The number of children needed to treat (NNT) was also calculated.
RESULTS: At the 24-month follow-up, 19 (14.4%) developed new caries in the Intervention Group, compared to 60 (60.0%) in the Control Group (p = .001). On average, 0.2 (95% CI = 0.1-0.3) tooth per child in the Intervention Group was observed to have developed new caries compared to 1.1 (95% CI = 0.8-1.3) tooth per child in the Control Group (p = .001). The number of children needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one child from developing new caries was 2.2.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study has demonstrated that 6-month home visits to families of 5- to 6-year-olds are effective in caries prevention in 5- to 6-year-olds of low-income families in a middle-income country where access to health services, including oral health promotion services, is limited.