British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: A policy document on dental neglect in children.

The British Society of Paediatric Dentistry's (BSPD) first policy document on dental neglect was published online in 2009. It proposed a new original definition of dental neglect, discussed the identification of dental neglect and recommended adopting a tiered response, with three stages of intervention according to level of concern. Furthermore, it detailed how the dental team should both contribute to the child protection process and implement wider measures to safeguard and promote children's welfare. Since 2009, these concepts have been widely adopted in the UK and beyond. Furthermore, there have been significant advances in both research and practice. Policy documents produced by the BSPD represent a majority view, based on the consideration of currently available evidence, and are tailored to a UK working environment. Although this updated document's recommendations remain broadly unchanged, this version reflects the professions' progress in understanding dental neglect and minor updates to terminology and, following a consultation process, has been amended to address the needs of two main audiences-dental professionals and nondental health and social care professionals-in order to enhance interdisciplinary working.

The dental health of children subject to a child protection plan.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, child maltreatment is an area of increased awareness and concern. AIM: To compare the dental health of children subject to child protection plans with controls. DESIGN: Children had to be aged between two and 11 years, medically healthy, and subject either to a child protection plan or attending the paediatric outpatient orthopaedic or general surgery clinics (control group). All children had a standardized oral examination. RESULTS: Seventy-nine children were examined in each group. Children with child protection plans had statistically higher levels of primary tooth decay than controls (mean dmft 3.82 and 2.03, Mann-Whitney U test P = 0.002). After adjusting for socioeconomic status, the incidence rate ratios for the occurrence of dental caries in the primary dentition in children with a child protection plan was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.44-2.15) relative to the controls. There was no statistical difference in the levels of permanent tooth decay between the study and control groups (mean DMFT 0.71 and 0.30, respectively). The care index was significantly lower (P = 0.008, Mann-Whitney U test) in the study group (1.69%) compared to the control group (6.02%). CONCLUSIONS: Children subject to child protection plans had significantly higher levels of dental caries in the primary dentition.

British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on dental neglect in children.

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2009This policy document was prepared by J.C. Harris, R.C. Balmer, and P.D. Sidebotham on behalf of the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD). Policy documents produced by the BSPD represent a majority view, based on consideration of currently available evidence. They are produced to provide guidance with the clear intention that the policy be regularly reviewed and updated to take account of changing views and developments.

The role for 'reminders' in dental traumatology: 4. The use of a computer database for recording dento-alveolar trauma in comparison to unstructured and structured paper-based methods.

The aims of this study were to investigate the effectiveness of a computer database (CD) developed for this study, a plain paper unstructured history (USH) and structured histories (SH) for the recording of important prognostic factors for simulated dento-alveolar trauma. Twelve vocational trainees, seven postgraduates in paediatric dentistry and 24 general dental practioners were randomly assigned to using USH, SH or CD. Each dentist visited a series of simulated trauma cases (with models, photos, radiographs and actors) and was asked to record important prognostic factors for each injury and make a diagnosis. There were a total of 243 dentist contacts with the trauma stations. The average percentage of important prognostic factors recorded per station was: USH 53%, SH 75.3% and CD 58.6%. SH was significantly better than the other two methods (P < 0.001, anova). Interestingly, those general dental practitioners (GDPs) who qualified prior to 1990 were significantly poorer at recording important prognostic information using CD. This effect was not obvious when using USH and SH. It was also seen that USH and SH were significantly better at helping clinicians reach a correct diagnosis as compared with CD (P < 0.001, chi-squared). A paper-based SH was the most effective method for collecting essential prognostic information for simulated trauma cases used in this study. At present, the introduction of our CD for recording of trauma is not justified without significant modification.