Dental auxiliaries for dental care traditionally provided by dentists.

BACKGROUND: Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases from their inception dates up to November 2013: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. We also undertook a grey literature search and searched the reference list of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in undertaking clinical tasks traditionally performed by a dentist. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study and two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence from the included studies, according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we gave a narrative description of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore.Of the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001).One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.All studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.

The oral health of adults attending dental practices in England in 2018: a report of a novel method and findings.

Introduction National surveys of the oral health of adults are conducted decennially. For reasons of feasibility and cost, these only provide accurate information at large geographical areas. To address this, a survey of adults attending dental practices in England was undertaken.Aim To describe and discuss the survey method and findings.Method A clinical examination and questionnaire survey was conducted in a sample of English dental practices.Results Questionnaires (n = 16,572) and clinical examinations (n = 14,270) were completed with patients from 1,173 dental practices. Poorer oral health disproportionately affected older adults and those from more socioeconomically deprived areas. Over one in three from more deprived areas had untreated caries compared with one in five in the less deprived (36.2% vs 19.9%) and impacts of oral problems were nearly three times higher in the more deprived areas (27.9% vs 11.0%). Of those receiving NHS care, 28.7% and 46.2% reported they would struggle/be unable to pay a Band 2 and Band 3 NHS patient charge, respectively.Conclusion It is feasible to undertake a survey of adults in dental practices but care must be taken generalising the findings to the general population and comparing them with other surveys undertaken using different methods.

The modified dental anxiety scale: UK general public population norms in 2008 with further psychometrics and effects of age.

BACKGROUND: The Modified Dental Anxiety Scale (MDAS) is a brief, self-complete questionnaire consisting of five questions and summed together to produce a total score ranging from 5 to 25. It has reasonable psychometric properties, low instrumental effects and can be integrated into everyday dental practice as a clinical aid and screen for dental anxiety. The objectives were to (i) produce confirmatory evidence of reliability and validity for the MDAS, (ii) provide up-to-date UK representative norms for the general public to enable clinicians to compare their patients' scores, (iii) to determine the nature of the relationship between dental anxiety and age. METHODS: Telephone survey of a representative quota sample of 1000 UK adults (>18 years of age) conducted between 7-21 April, 2008. RESULTS: Attrition of potential participants was high in the recruitment process, although bias was minimal. Estimated proportion of participants with high dental anxiety (cut-off score = 19) was 11.6%. Dental anxiety was four times greater in the youngest age group (18-39 yrs) compared to older participants (60+ yrs), controlling for sex, social class and self-reported dental visiting behaviour confirming previous developed-world reports. CONCLUSION: The scale's psychometrics is supportive for the routine assessment of patient dental anxiety to compare against a number of major demographic groups categorised by age and sex. Dental anxiety was high in younger compared to older people.

The Self-Reported Oral Health Status and Dental Attendance of Smokers and Non-Smokers in England.

Smoking has been identified as the second greatest risk factor for global death and disability and has impacts on the oral cavity from aesthetic changes to fatal diseases such as oral cancer. The paper presents a secondary analysis of the National Adult Dental Health Survey (2009). The analysis used descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and logistic regression models to report the self-reported oral health status and dental attendance of smokers and non-smokers in England. Of the 9,657 participants, 21% reported they were currently smoking. When compared with smokers; non-smokers were more likely to report 'good oral health' (75% versus 57% respectively, p<0.05). Smokers were twice as likely to attend the dentist symptomatically (OR = 2.27, CI = 2.02-2.55) compared with non-smoker regardless the deprivation status. Smokers were more likely to attend symptomatically in the most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.99, CI = 1.57-2.52) and perceive they had poorer oral health (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.42-2.20). The present research is consistent with earlier sub-national research and should be considered when planning early diagnosis and management strategies for smoking-related conditions, considering the potential impact dental teams might have on smoking rates.