MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen individuals with a range of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and normal oral mucosa were included. Five areas of the oral cavity were photographed by three dentists using mobile phone cameras with 5 MP-13 MP resolutions. On the same day, the patients were given COE by two oral medicine specialists (OMS) and 3 weeks later, they reviewed the images taken using the phone, and concordance was examined between the two by Kappa statistics. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis using the phone images were also measured. Pre- and post-program questionnaires were answered by both the dentists and the OMS to determine the feasibility of integrating teledentistry in their clinical practice.

RESULTS: The Kappa values in determining the presence of lesion, category of lesion (OPMD or not), and making referral decision were moderate to strong (0.64-1.00). The overall sensitivity was more than 70% and specificity was 100%. The false negative rate decreased as the camera resolution increased. All dentists agreed that the process could facilitate early detection of oral mucosal lesion, and was easy to use in the clinic.

METHODS: In the GCD program, year-2 dental students from universities in Egypt, Hong Kong, Malaysia, UK, and the United States developed a portfolio of a restorative procedure in simulation laboratory and uploaded to an online platform (https://gcd.hku.hk/). Through the platform, the students left comments on each other's portfolios to share and discuss their knowledge and experiences on restorative dentistry. This study invited students from Hong Kong in 2018-2019 to complete an open-ended questionnaire to explore their experience on the GCD program. The feedback was compiled and analyzed.

RESULTS: All 71 year-2 students completed the questionnaire. Their most dominant comments were positive feelings about learning different clinical principles and methods from universities abroad. The students also enjoyed the cultural exchange from the comfort of their own devices. Other recurrent comments included the improvement of the skills of communication and comments on the peers' work in a professional manner. The students were enthusiastic about being able to apply their critical thinking in evaluating their work. They shared their learning barriers, including the extra time needed for the program, some unenthusiastic responses from groupmates, and delayed replies from peers. They made suggestions to remove the barriers in the learning process of the GCD program.

METHODS: A 24-item validated questionnaire including closed and open questions on the teaching of posterior composites was emailed to faculty members in all 13 Dental Schools in Malaysia. Responses were compiled on Excel and analysed.

RESULTS: All 13 dental schools responded to the survey yielding a 100 % response. All schools indicated the use of posterior composites for 2- and 3-surface cavities in premolars and molars. The didactic teaching time devoted to composites was greater than for amalgam (38 h vs 29 h). Clinically, most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (average 74.1 %, range 10 %-100 %); the remaining 25.9 % were amalgams (range, 0 %-50 %). Slot-type cavities were the preparation techniques most commonly taught (n = 11,84.6 %). The use of rubber dam for moisture control was mandatory in most schools (n = 11, 84.6 %). History of adverse reaction to composites was found to be the most common contraindication to composite placement. The phase down of teaching and use of amalgam in Malaysia is expected to occur within the next six years.

CONCLUSION: The trend to increase the teaching of posterior composites reported for other countries is confirmed by the findings from Malaysian dental schools. Notwithstanding this trend, the use of amalgam is still taught, and future studies are required to investigate the implications of the phase down of amalgam in favour of posterior composites.

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.