METHODS: Validated translated versions of the Hiroshima University-Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) questionnaire were administered to 1,096 final-year dental students in 17 countries. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted within the data to detect patterns and groupings.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 72%. The cluster analysis identified two main groups among the countries. Group 1 consisted of twelve countries: one Oceanic (Australia), one Middle-Eastern (Israel), seven European (Northern Ireland, England, Finland, Greece, Germany, Italy, and France) and three Asian (Korea, Thailand and Malaysia) countries. Group 2 consisted of five countries: one South American (Brazil), one European (Belgium) and three Asian (China, Indonesia and Japan) countries. The percentages of 'agree' responses in three HU-DBI questionnaire items were significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1. They include: "I worry about the colour of my teeth."; "I have noticed some white sticky deposits on my teeth."; and "I am bothered by the colour of my gums."
CONCLUSION: Grouping the countries into international clusters yielded useful information for dentistry and dental education.
Results: Candidal growth was found in 21.42% (n = 24) of COPD cases and 1.1% (n = 11) of control cases (p < 0.05) (95% CI 0.45, 0.59). The DMFT score was 8.26 in COPD subjects and 4.6 in controls, the SiC score was 16.42 in COPD subjects and 10.25 in controls, and the CPITN score for both COPD and control cases was score 2.
Conclusion: In conclusion, there was a higher candidal load among subjects suffering from COPD. Theophylline medication can be a risk factor for increased candidal load in COPD patients.
METHODS: National representative data from the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey, United Kingdom, were used in this study. Periodontal disease severity was measured using periodontal pocket depth and categorized into three groups: pocket depth up to 3.5, 3.5-5.5 and more than 5.5 mm. OHRQoL was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) scores. Bivariate and multivariable Zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis was used.
RESULTS: A total of 6378 participants was analysed in this study. Periodontal pocketing was significantly associated with higher OHIP-14 scores. Participants with periodontal pocket depths >3.5 mm had a significantly higher prevalence for functional limitation, physical pain and social disability than participants with pocket depths of less than 3.5 mm. Participants with periodontal pocket depth(s) >5.5 mm had significantly higher OFOVO prevalence in all the domains of OHIP-14 except handicap domain than participants with pocket depth(s) <3.5 mm.
PARTICIPANTS:
CONCLUSION: This study showed that for a nationally representative sample of the United Kingdom population, periodontal disease was significantly associated with the domains of OHRQoL.
METHODS: A structured questionnaire was used to collect data on a child's current and previous illnesses, oral health behaviours, dietary habits, parental smoking behaviours and parents' dental history. The intraoral examination recorded dental caries (dmfs), enamel defects, gingival health, melanin pigmentation and soft tissue health. Stimulated saliva was collected. Total sIgA levels were quantified using indirect competitive ELISA with a SalimetricsTM kit.
RESULTS: The 44 children (aged 15-69 months) recruited were divided into two groups: ETS and non-ETS (control). There were 22 children in each: 16 who were exposed to ETS during and after gestation were identified as the ETSB subgroup. Participants exposed to ETS were more likely to have had upper respiratory tract and middle ear infections during the neonatal period and had higher mean dmft, mean dmfs, mean percent of surfaces with demarcated opacities and mean GI than the non-ETS participants. The children exposed to ETS before and after birth had the highest occurrence of enamel opacities showed a higher risk for dental caries even though more children in this group used the recommended fluoride toothpaste (1000 ppm fluoride). Mothers who smoked either never breastfed their children or breastfed their children for less than the recommended period of 6 months. Children exposed to ETS were shown to have higher mean total sIgA (μg/ml) than the children in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: Associations between ETS exposure before and after gestation and oral health, including salivary changes in young children were shown in the present study. Dental health professionals should include a question about household smoking in children's dental histories, which would allow opportunities to discuss the impact of smoking on child oral health. Longitudinal oral health studies should include a history of maternal smoking during pregnancy and afterwards.
METHODS: This study used data from 6524 participants of the 1970 British Birth Cohort Study, an ongoing population-based birth cohort of individuals born in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants' socioeconomic position was indicated by occupational social class at age 26 and 46 years (the first and latest adult waves, respectively). Self-rated oral health was measured at age 46 years. The association between social mobility and adult oral health was assessed using conventional regression models and diagonal reference models, adjusting for gender, ethnicity, country of residence and residence area.
RESULTS: Over a fifth of participants (22.2%) reported poor self-rated oral health at age 46 years. In conventional regression analysis, the odds ratios for social mobility varied depending on whether they were adjusted for social class of origin or destination. In addition, all social trajectories had greater odds of reporting poor oral health than non-mobile adults in class I/II. In diagonal reference models, both upward (Odds Ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99) and downward mobility (0.90; 95% CI 0.71-1.13) were inversely associated with poor self-rated oral health. The origin weight was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33-0.63), suggesting that social class of origin was as important as social class of destination.
CONCLUSION: This longitudinal analysis showed that intragenerational social mobility from young to middle adulthood was associated with self-rated oral health, independent of previous and current social class.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Kandy district, Sri Lanka. The nutritional status of older persons was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment -Short Form (MNA-SF). A standardised questionnaire was used to record factors associated with malnutrition: demographic characteristics, financial characteristics, food and appetite, lifestyle, psychological characteristics, physical characteristics, disease and care, oral health, and social factors. Complex sample multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Among the 999 participants included in the study, 748 (69.3%) were females and 251 (25.1%) were males. The mean age was 70.80 years (95% CI: 70.13, 71.47). The prevalence of malnutrition, risk of malnutrition and well-nutrition was 12.5%, 52.4% and 35.1% respectively. In the multivariate model, hypertension (adjusted OR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.89), alcohol consumption (aOR = 4.06; 95% CI: 1.17, 14.07), and increased age (aOR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11) were positively associated with malnutrition. An increased number of people living with the older person (aOR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.97) was a protective factor among those at risk for malnutrition.
CONCLUSION: Both the prevalence of malnutrition and risk of malnutrition were commonly observed among community-dwelling older persons in Sri Lanka. The associated factors identified in this study might help public health professionals to implement necessary interventions that improve the nutritional status of this population.
METHODS: The National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019, a cross-sectional nationwide household survey that focused on non-institutionalised Malaysians, provided the data for this study on adults in Malaysia who were 18 years of age and older. A two-stage stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure national representativeness. Data was collected using a multilingual (Malay and English), structured, and validated questionnaire via face-to-face interviews from July to October 2019. The dependent variable was oral healthcare seeking behavior (sought oral healthcare and self-medication). Independent variables were predisposing, enabling and health needs factor based on Andersen's Behavioral Model. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and oral healthcare seeking behavior of the respondents. The relationship between the independent and dependent variables were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The analysis comprised a total of 10,134 respondents, representing about 18.2 million Malaysian adults aged 18 and above. The overall prevalence of Malaysian adults who self-reported dental problems was low (5.5%) and was slightly higher in the rural than urban population. Almost half sought treatment from healthcare practitioners, and almost a quarter self-medicated. Ethnicity was associated with seeking healthcare and self-medication among urban dwellers. Among the rural population, income level was associated with seeking healthcare while education level was associated with self-medication.
CONCLUSION: Disparities in oral healthcare seeking behaviors exist between Malaysians living in urban and rural areas. Future policies should adopt focused strategies that concentrate on oral healthcare accessibility and health literacy of the vulnerable and rural populations to achieve the best oral healthcare for this population group.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening. We found very low-certainty evidence that is 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 is 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 may 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) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone. For children requiring treatment, we found very-low certainty evidence that was inconclusive regarding whether or not a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' was better than a standard referral letter.We did not find any trials addressing possible adverse effects of school dental screening or evaluating its effectiveness for improving oral health.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for school dental screening in improving dental attendance. We are uncertain whether traditional screening is better than no screening (very low-certainty evidence). Criteria-based screening may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening (low-certainty evidence). However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence). For children requiring treatment, personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific referral letters (very low-certainty evidence). Screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' is better than a standard referral letter (very low-certainty evidence) or whether specific referral to a dental treatment facility is better than a generic advice letter to visit the dentist (very low-certainty evidence). The trials included in this review evaluated effects of school dental screening in the short term. None of them evaluated its effectiveness for improving oral health or addressed possible adverse effects or costs.
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.