METHODS: Cross sectional data collected on school children in eight rural and urban schools through the national Incremental Dental Care Programme (IDCP) for one district in Malaysia were analysed to assess their annual caries increment and trend lines. The Restorative Index was calculated to assess the success of the IDCP in rendering children dentally fit.
RESULTS: The annual caries increments were low; the current caries levels were between 0.65 and 1.50 for 12 year-old children in Kota Tinggi District. Most of the caries experience was on pits and fissures. From 7 to 12 years old, the overall annual caries increment for the total study population was 0.19. The mean annual caries increment increased slightly between the ages of 12 to 14 years and 14 to 16 years and was 0.24 and 0.25 respectively. Two distinct caries incremental trend lines were observed for children aged 7 to 16 years. One group reached a mean DMFT of about 0.75 while the other group a mean DMFT of about 1.4 at 12 years. The trend lines continued over the next 4 years until the children were 16 years old. The Restorative Index was higher in urban schools that also had low DMFT levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low annual caries increments of between 0.65 and 1.50, yearly dental examination intervals can safely be extended to 2-yearly intervals or even longer. Such a change of screening recall intervals would help improve resource allocation. Resources saved by extending recall intervals can be redirected to the small proportion of children with higher disease levels. This will help render more school children dentally fit and reduce inequalities in oral health.
METHODS: This intervention study was conducted in Araihazar Thana, Narayanganj district, Bangladesh during April 2012 to March 2013. The total participants were 944 students from three local schools. At baseline, students were assessed for oral health knowledge, attitude and practices using a self-administered structured questionnaire and untreated dental caries was assessed using clinical examination. Follow up study was done after 6 months from baseline. McNemar's chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the impact of OHE program on four recurrent themes of oral health between the baseline and follow-up. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine the impact of the intervention group on our outcome variables.
RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed regarding school aged adolescents' self-reported higher knowledge, attitude and practices scores (p < 0.001) at follow-up compared with baseline. The prevalence of untreated dental caries of the study population after the OHE program was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced to 42.5 %. Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that the OHE intervention remained a significant predictor in reducing the risk of untreated dental caries (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] =0.51; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.37, 0.81). In the follow-up period participants were 2.21 times (95 % CI = 1.87, 3.45) more likely to have higher level of knowledge regarding oral health compared to baseline. Compared with baseline participants in the follow-up were 1.89 times (95 % CI = 1.44-2.87) more likely to have higher attitude towards oral health. In addition, OHE intervention was found to be significantly associated with higher level of practices toward oral health (AOR = 1.64; 95 % CI = 1.12, 3.38).
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that OHE intervention was effective in increasing i) knowledge, ii) attitude, and iii) practices towards oral health; it also significantly reduced the prevalence of untreated dental caries among school aged adolescents from grade 6-8 in a deprived rural area of Bangladesh.
METHODS: This study involved lifelong residents aged 9- and 12-year-olds in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas in Malaysia (n = 1155). In the fluoridated area, children aged 12 years and 9 years were exposed to 0.7 and 0.5 ppm, respectively, at the times when maxillary central incisors developed. Standardized photographs of maxillary central incisors were blind scored for fluorosis using Dean's criteria. Dental caries was examined using ICDAS-II criteria.
RESULTS: The prevalence of fluorosis (Dean's score ≥ 2) among children in the fluoridated area (35.7%, 95% CI: 31.9%-39.6%) was significantly higher (P
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study involved 245 students enrolled in the first year medical (M1) and dental (D1) course and fourth year medical (M4) and dental (D4) course. The students completed a self-administered questionnaire which included knowledge and opinions on early childhood oral health. Comparisons between the groups were done using chi-square test.
RESULTS: Dental students showed significantly better knowledge than medical students. D1 students showed significantly better knowledge of age of first tooth eruption over M1. Knowledge of recommended age for bottle weaning was higher among D4 students but not significantly more than M4 students.
CONCLUSION: The majority of medical students showed inadequate knowledge indicating that medical curriculum should emphasise on oral health topics of public health relevance like ECC and its prevention. Dental students had better knowledge regarding early childhood oral health, but lacked knowledge on its preventive aspects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 35 questions was distributed by mail or an online survey to 425 registered dentists selected according to place of work by stratified random sampling.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three dentists responded to the survey. A positive attitude towards FS and PRR was noted among most Malaysian dentists. About half of the respondents used FS/PRR occasionally (48.4%), while few (13.7%) applied them routinely. The majority of the dentists agreed that minimally invasive dentistry is important and FS are effective in caries prevention, using them on high caries-risk individuals. Most of the dentists used pumice or paste to clean teeth before placing FS/PRR. A significant number of dentists used a bonding agent prior to placing FS. Although only 57.5% dentists were aware of guidelines for FS use, most dentists agreed that guidelines are important.
CONCLUSION: Although there was a positive attitude towards FS/PRR, few dentists applied them routinely. Some of the steps undertaken for placement of FS and PRR were outdated. Updating local guidelines for dentists to ensure uniform practice of FS and PRR is justified.