Is the use of tobacco products, especially electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), associated with the incidence of oral health outcomes among US adults?

DESIGN: Cohort study. SAMPLE SELECTION: Data were pooled from wave (W) 1 to W5 (2013-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Restricted-Use Files. The W1 cohort respondents were interviewed at all five waves who were aged 18 years and older without a lifetime history of each of the six oral health outcomes (gum disease, precancerous oral lesions, bone loss around teeth, bleeding after brushing or flossing, loose teeth, number of teeth removed because of tooth decay or gum disease). DATA ANALYSIS: Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to September 2022. To assess associations between current established tobacco use and incidence of adverse oral health outcomes at the next wave, adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Cigarette smoking was positively associated with incidence of gum disease diagnosis (AHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.11-1.60), loose teeth (AHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.75), and one or more teeth removed (AHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.74). Smoking any cigars was positively associated with incidence of precancerous oral lesions (AHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.38-3.43). Hookah smoking was positively associated with incidence of gum disease diagnosis (AHR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.20-2.63). Use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) was positively associated with incidence of bleeding after brushing or flossing (AHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54). Snus and smokeless tobacco (excluding snus) were not significantly associated with incidence of gum disease diagnosis or precancerous oral lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study confirmed associations of current combustible tobacco use with incidence of adverse oral health outcomes. It also showed an association between current ENDS use and incidence of bleeding after brushing or flossing.

Effect of implant rehabilitation on oral health-related quality of life with three different implant strategies.

Design Non-randomised controlled trial.Case selection Patients requiring dental implants were recruited from a private dental surgery in Spain. According to the clinical diagnosis and patient preference, patients were assigned to one of the following three treatment protocols: the conventional treatment (CGCL), in which implants were inserted after flap elevation without guiding templates; the guided surgery/conventional loading group (GSCL); and the guided surgery/immediate loading group (GSIL).Data analysis An oral examination and a questionnaire-based interview were carried out at baseline and three months after the delivery of the definitive prosthetic rehabilitation. Two complementary indicators, Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) and Oral Satisfaction Scale (OSS) were used to assess the changes in oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL). Paired t-tests were used to compare the within-subject change scores. ANOVA tests were used to compare quantitative variables between groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare the distribution of data between groups. Effect size was used to assess the relative responsiveness of different health indicators and to compare the amount of change resulting from different treatment protocols. A forward stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the risk of having impact after treatment.Results A total of 104 patients were recruited: CGCL (n = 40), GSCL (n = 35) and GSIL (n = 29). At baseline, the OHQoL was significantly greater among those assigned to CGCL (2.4 ± 1.3) than those assigned to GSCL (3.3 ± 1.3), which were both greater than those patients assigned to GSIL (4.6 ± 2.0). After implant therapy, the oral wellbeing was significantly better than at baseline, and patient satisfaction was greater when the implants were loaded immediately (8.7 ± 1.1) than if the prosthetic rehabilitation was delayed (8.3 ± 1.1). In the GSIL group, the effect size of the OIDP exceeded the threshold value of 0.8 for all of the OIDP domains and for the total OIDP score and patient satisfaction.Conclusions A global improvement in the OHQoL scores and patient satisfaction was observed after implant therapy, but the change was marked greater in the GSIL group.

Provision of dental hospital services during the COVID-19 epidemic.

DATA SOURCES: Information about health services provision of public tertiary dental hospitals in China mainland was retrieved through a web search engine. DATA ANALYSIS: The status of non-emergency dental services, emergency dental services and online professional consultation was recorded and analysed. If telehealth was provided, the charge, means of access, service time and service content were investigated. The geographical distribution of hospitals was recorded and classified. RESULTS: A total of 48 dental hospitals were included in the study. All 48 dental hospitals suspended general non-emergency dental treatment. They provided emergency dental services only. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant change in the health service provision of Chinese dental hospitals during the COVID-19 epidemic and wider use of telehealth in the eastern region.

The Truth about Sugar.

Sugars are used by the industry to enhance the attractiveness of foods and drinks. These added sugars, or 'free sugars', are not easily identified in food or drink labels. Certain manufactured foods and drinks with 'safe' names, such as dried fruit and fruit juice, still contain free sugars and can be confusing. Guidance states that daily consumption of free sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake (no more than 5% in the UK). However, it is found that both tooth decay and obesity are associated with consumption of free sugars in large quantities and at inappropriate times.

Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries remains a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. Milk may provide a relatively cost-effective vehicle for fluoride delivery in the prevention of dental caries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of milk fluoridation for preventing dental caries at a community level. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (inception to November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014). We also searched the U.S. National Institutes of Health Trials Register (https://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with an intervention and follow-up period of at least two years, comparing fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included one unpublished RCT, randomising 180 children aged three years at study commencement. The setting was nursery schools in an area with high prevalence of dental caries and a low level of fluoride in drinking water. Data from 166 participants were available for analysis. The study carried a high risk of bias. After three years, there was a reduction of caries in permanent teeth (mean difference (MD) -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.02) and in primary teeth (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.42), as measured by the decayed, missing and filled teeth index (DMFT for permanent teeth and dmft for primary teeth). For primary teeth, this is a substantial reduction, equivalent to a prevented fraction of 31%. For permanent teeth, the disease level was very low in the study, resulting in a small absolute effect size. The included study did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (adverse events, dental pain, antibiotic use or requirement for general anaesthesia due to dental procedures). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren, contributing to a substantial reduction in dental caries in primary teeth. Due to the low quality of the evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There was only one relatively small study, which had important methodological limitations on the data for the effectiveness in reducing caries. Furthermore, there was no information about the potential harms of the intervention. Additional RCTs of high quality are needed before we can draw definitive conclusions about the benefits of milk fluoridation.

Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries remains a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. Milk may provide a relatively cost-effective vehicle for fluoride delivery in the prevention of dental caries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of milk fluoridation for preventing dental caries at a community level. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (inception to November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014). We also searched the U.S. National Institutes of Health Trials Register (https://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with an intervention and follow-up period of at least two years, comparing fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included one unpublished RCT, randomising 180 children aged three years at study commencement. The setting was nursery schools in an area with high prevalence of dental caries and a low level of fluoride in drinking water. Data from 166 participants were available for analysis. The study carried a high risk of bias. After three years, there was a reduction of caries in permanent teeth (mean difference (MD) -0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.02) and in primary teeth (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.42), as measured by the decayed, missing and filled teeth index (DMFT for permanent teeth and dmft for primary teeth). For primary teeth, this is a substantial reduction, equivalent to a prevented fraction of 31%. For permanent teeth, the disease level was very low in the study, resulting in a small absolute effect size. The included study did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (adverse events, dental pain, antibiotic use or requirement for general anaesthesia due to dental procedures). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren, contributing to a substantial reduction in dental caries in primary teeth. Due to the low quality of the evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There was only one relatively small study, which had important methodological limitations on the data for the effectiveness in reducing caries. Furthermore, there was no information about the potential harms of the intervention. Additional RCTs of high quality are needed before we can draw definitive conclusions about the benefits of milk fluoridation.