MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through "All Databases." Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description.
RESULTS: The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =-0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.
METHODS: The OPL session was conducted by two postgraduate students in SCD (as teachers), to final year undergraduate dental students (as learners) (n = 90), supervised by two specialists in SCD-related areas (as supervisors). Vetted online pre- and post-intervention quizzes were conducted before and after the session, respectively, followed by an online validated feedback survey of the students' learning experiences. Meanwhile, a reflective session was conducted between the postgraduate students and supervisors to explore their perceptions of OPL. Quantitative data was analyzed via paired t-test (significance level, P
METHODS: This study was a narrative review using literature in the last 10 years identified by web-based search on PubMed and Scopus using keywords. A total of 33 articles that were closely related to the field and application in dentistry were included. The methodology, main results, and future research recommendations, if applicable, were extracted and reviewed.
RESULTS: The authors in this study had identified several areas such as orofacial pain and pain control research, dental anxiety, dental education, oral healthcare perceptions and access, living with dental diseases and dental treatment experience in which the phenomenological method was used to gain an in-depth understanding of the topic.
CONCLUSIONS: There are several advantages of using the phenomenological research method, such as the small sample size needed, the diverse and unique perspective that can be obtained and the ability to improve current understanding, especially from the first-person perspective.
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.
METHODS: A total of 426 dental panoramic radiographs of 5-15-year-old Malaysian children were included in the study. The mean age error and absolute age error for all the methods were calculated and their usability analyzed.
RESULTS: The Nolla, Willems. and Demirjian methods overestimated the dental age with a mean of 0.97, 0.54, and 0.54 years, respectively, while the Cameriere and Haavikko methods underestimated by 0.41 and 1.31 years, respectively. The Cameriere method was highly precise and accurate in the population of Malaysian children, whereas the Haavikko and Demirjian methods were the least precise and accurate.
CONCLUSIONS: The Cameriere method of dental-age estimation is highly valid and reliable for Malaysian population, followed by the Willems and Nolla methods.
DESIGN: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P