METHODS: A survey consisting of two validated questionnaires was distributed to dental patients registered at the University of Malaya Faculty of Dentistry. The Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) evaluates the prevalence and severity of TMD, while the Oral Health Impact Profile - Temporomandibular Disorder (OHIP-TMD) appraises the effects of TMD on oral health-related QoL.
RESULTS: Out of 342 patients (aged 16 to 50 years, 45% male and 55% female) enrolled in the survey, 50.9% had varying degrees of TMD. All 7 domains of OHIP-TMD showed a statistically significant correlation with TMD severity.
CONCLUSION: TMD seems to be prevalent among Malaysian dental patients. Not only does TMD affect the QoL of an individual, but the more severe the degree of reported symptoms, the poorer their perceived oral health QoL.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out on 400 pregnant women who were selected using stratified random sampling technique from eight private maternity centers located in Indore city. A questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic characteristics, oral hygiene practices, previous dental visit and past medical history. OHRQOL was assessed using Oral Health Impact Profile-14 questionnaire. Lifestyle factors were assessed using the Health practice Index.
Results: The lifestyle factors were the strongest predictor for poor OHRQOL. The pregnant women (OR = 3.22, P-value < 0.0001*) with poor lifestyle had significantly poor OHRQOL. Logistic regression analysis showed that poor socio-economic status (OR = 2.63, P-value = 0.025*), brushing frequency of less than or equal to once daily (OR = 2.02, P-value = 0.025*), and suffering from systemic diseases (OR = 2.11, P-value = 0.017*) were other important predictors for poor OHRQOL in pregnant women.
Conclusions: Our findings showed that lifestyle factors significantly impact OHRQOL in pregnant women. Thus, it is recommended that effective policies should be drafted to improve lifestyle factors and OHRQOL in pregnant women.
METHODS: We recruited long-stay inpatients with schizophrenia from June to October 2014. Four dental specialists assessed oral health using the decayed-missing-filled teeth index, the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs and the Debris Index of the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. Results were compared with the 2010 Oral Health survey of the general Malaysian population.
RESULTS: A total of 543 patients participated (66.7% males, 33.3% females; mean age = 54.8 years [standard deviation = 16.0]) with a mean illness duration of 18.4 years (standard deviation = 17.1). The mean decayed-missing-filled teeth was 20.5 (standard deviation = 9.9), almost double that of the general population (11.7). Higher decayed-missing-filled teeth scores were associated with both older age (p oral health is most marked for dental decay. Possible interventions include oral health assessments using standard checklists designed for non-dental personnel, help with oral hygiene, management of iatrogenic dry mouth and early dental referral.
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: This cross-sectional study had randomly and systematically recruited facial burn patients from the Burn Care Center, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, from June of 2016 to July of 2017. Intraoral examination recorded the DMFT, CPI and OHI-S. Information on the socio-demographic status, self-perceived oral health, oral health behaviours were collected using a self-administered questionnaire and; the burn characteristics were obtained from the patients' medical record. The t-test, ANOVA, SLR, and chi-square test were used to examine the relationship between oral health and each factor. A parameter was derived from the clinical indices using the principal component analysis and used in the multiple linear regression analysis to determine the important factors associated with oral health status.
RESULTS: A total of 271 burn patients (69% female and 31% male) had participated in the study. All of the participants had caries with mean DMFT = 10.96 (95%CI: 10.67, 11.25). There were 59.0% (95%CI: 53.15, 64.93%) and 66.1% (95%CI: 60.38, 71.73%) of the participants who had periodontitis and poor oral hygiene respectively. About 79 and 80% of the participants rated their dental and periodontal status as poor. About 78% reported brushing once daily and 89% did not practice regular dental visit. The DMFT, CPI and OHI-S were associated with the burn characteristics and oral health behaviours (p oral health services. Greater burn severity, the longer time elapsed since the burn incident, and dental anxiety were associated with poorer oral health status and; brushing twice or more and regular dental visit, with better status (p oral health and, the risks are greater in those with a more severe and wider area of injury, the longer time elapsed since the burn incident and dental anxiety; but a good oral hygiene practice and regular dental visits were protective against the risk.