Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between khat and occlusal caries progression.

Methods: A cohort study was carried out among 98 Yemeni khat chewers and 101 non-chewers aged 18-35 years old with early occlusal caries lesions. All participants answered questions on socio-demographic, khat , oral hygiene , sugar intake, and oral health knowledge at baseline. All posterior teeth with an early enamel lesion on occlusal surfaces detected by visual inspection at baseline were also subjected to DIAGNOdent assessment to confirm early lesion (DIAGNOdent reading 13-24). Participants were re-examined after 12 weeks. Caries progression was considered to occur when the DIAGNOdent reading was >25. Data were analyzed using Relative risk, Mann-Whitney U test, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and logistic regression analysis.

Results: Occlusal caries progression incidence between khat chewers and non-chewers, with the relative risk was 1.68. There was no significant difference in occlusal caries progression on chewing side and non-chewing side among khat chewers. Khat chewing was a statistical predictor for those with low income.

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.

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 4 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 4 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 March 2019), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 4 March 2019). 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 seven trials (five were cluster-RCTs) with 20,192 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Trials assessed follow-up periods of three to eight months. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two were based in India and one in the USA. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, two trials to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases, cost effectiveness or adverse events.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 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).Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias.  No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. 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 partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

Methodology: Ethical committee of the University approved this study. A validated, pre-tested questionnaire was sent electronically to 224 OHP. Questionnaire collected information regarding demography, knowledge about HPV-OSCC link, HPV vaccine, and willingness to educate patients about HPV OSCC link among the participants of this cross-sectional study. Data collected was analysed using "Stata/IC-13" and was summarised using descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.

Results: Out of 179 participants, around 39% of the participant's opined virus was not a causative factor for OSCC. Around, 44% replied posterior portion of the tongue/oro-pharynx was the commonest site for HPV related OSCC, whereas 29% replied that lateral border of the tongue was the common site for HPV related OSCC. Forty one percent educated patients regarding HPV infection being a causative factor for OSCC. HPV vaccine can prevent OSCC was stated by 70% OHP. Only 12% were aware of the availability of HPV vaccine in Malaysia. Majority (99%), agreed that there is a need to offer continuing education programmes to dentists highlighting advances and preventive strategies in the fight against OSCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 150 subjects attending the Primary Care Unit with no history of orthodontic treatment. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) with 10 occlusal characteristics were measured on study models. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed with the Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the malocclusion and quality of life.

RESULTS: Significantly weak correlations (r = .176) were found between the DAI and the OHRQoL. Females and the younger age group (12-19 years) tended to score higher on the OHIP-14 than their counterparts. For males, domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .462), domain 4 (physical disability; r = .312), domain 7 (handicap; r = .309), and overall score (r = .289) were weak correlates but significant to the DAI compared with females. The older age group showed a significant weak correlation in domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .268) and domain 7 (handicap; r = .238), whereas the younger age group showed no correlation with any domain.