Learning in conversation-A feasibility pilot study involving dental students and older people.

INTRODUCTION: Older people represent a growing proportion of the population in most high-income countries. The impact of oral diseases on health and well-being is far-reaching, and future graduates should be able to meet their needs in this phase of life. This research tested the feasibility of involving dental students in direct community engagement to explore older peoples' oral health concerns and information needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen older people were recruited locally to attend workshops with eight dental students in a health and well-being centre. First, older people selected oral health-related topics important to them, raising relevant questions and concerns. Students provided evidence-informed feedback on these selected topics at a subsequent workshop. Participants (students and older people) reflected on their involvement (via questionnaires, discussions and personal reflections). Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. The structure, process and outcome of the study were explored. RESULTS: Structure: Both students and older people were willing to participate in workshops. Workshops in the community facilitated active engagement between both groups without the constraints of clinics. PROCESS: Students considered pre-workshop preparations adequate but raised issues about their ability to manage 'strong characters' within discussion groups. OUTCOME: Older people welcomed the initiative. Important topics raised by them were addressed by students giving them advice on maintaining their oral health. Students reported an improved understanding of how older people can be supported and expected a significant impact on future practice. CONCLUSION: Student involvement in direct community engagement was welcomed by all, demonstrating the feasibility and positive impact of the design whilst highlighting issues of importance for older people's oral health.

Talking about cancer: Patient responses to raising awareness of oral cancer in primary dental care.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists and other members of the dental team could raise awareness by talking about oral cancer during routine dental check-ups. A communication guide has been developed to facilitate this. However, it has been suggested that discussions about oral cancer may raise patients' anxiety and this has been documented by dentists as a barrier to having these conversations. The current research aimed to investigate implementation of the communication guide and its impact on the dental patient. METHODS: A consecutive-case sample of adult dental patients attending primary dental care for a routine NHS check-up at one dental practice were invited to take part in the study via letter prior to their appointment. Consultations of participating patients (n = 77) were audio-recorded. Before and after their appointment, patients were asked to rate their current anxiety via the six-item version of Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Audio recordings of each consultation were reviewed by two raters to determine the extent to which the dentist covered the topics recommended in the communication guide. RESULTS: The dentist informed all patients that they were being checked for oral cancer, spoke about signs and symptoms, and discussed risk factors. However, they rarely recommended where help should be sought or addressed barriers to seeking help. Discussions took an average of 95 s. The extent to which oral cancer was discussed did not correlate with patients' post-appointment anxiety. Patients made positive or neutral responses to the discussions. The few questions that were asked were easily addressed. CONCLUSIONS: As findings are based on one dentist working at one practice, generalization of these results should be cautious. The study indicated that using an evidence-based guide to talk about oral cancer did not appear to raise patients' anxiety in this practice population. This could help to increase awareness of oral cancer in the endeavour to facilitate early cancer diagnosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum on Plaque Quantity in the Oral Cavity.

Background: The aim of this systematic review of published literature was to answer the research question, "What is the difference in the level of plaque quantity, in adults and children who chew sugar-free gum (SFG), compared with those who do not chew SFG, who do not chew gum, or who use alternatives such as probiotics or fluoride varnish?". Methods: The systematic review [registered on PROSPERO 2018 (CRD42018094676)] included studies on adults and children with chewing of SFG as the main intervention, where "sugar" referred to monosaccharides and disaccharides. Included studies were in English and corresponded to primary research published between 1946 and 2020. The search conducted spanned all relevant databases using both Medical Subject Headings (MESH) and free text with combinations of "chewing gum," "sugar-free," "caries," "xerostomia," "periodontal disease." Results: Eight articles included plaque quantity as part of their outcomes. Meta-analysis showed that SFG significantly reduced plaque quantity (effect size-0.778; 95% CI-1.167 to-0.39). The correlation between the baseline and the end of study data was assumed to be 0.95 for the control and 0.65 for the SFG group. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with the pre- to post-test correlation, set at 0.95 for the SFG group. This gave an effect size of-1.098 (95% CI-1.539 to-0.656) with I 2 = 89.73%. When looking more specifically at xylitol gum, the results of the meta-analysis showed that it significantly reduced plaque quantity (effect size-0.743; 95% CI-1.148 to-0.338). There was a high degree of heterogeneity between studies with I 2 = 86.0%. Conclusion: There is some evidence that chewing sugar-free gum, in particular xylitol SFG, reduces the quantity of plaque in the oral cavity in comparison to non SFG chewing or no chewing controls. Further research with improved design, lengthier timeframes and higher number of participants should be considered. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=94676.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of sugar-free chewing gum on Streptococcus mutans.

BACKGROUND: Preventive strategies targeting Streptococcus mutans may be effective in reducing the global burden of caries. The aim of the current systematic review of published literature was to determine the difference in level of Streptococcus mutans in adults and children who chew sugar-free gum (SFG), compared with those who did not chew gum, who chewed a control gum or received alternatives such as probiotics or fluoride varnish. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018094676) of controlled trials with adult and child participants where chewing of SFG was the main intervention. Databases searched (1 Jan 1946 to 31 August 2020): MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Open Grey, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library of systematic reviews. 'Search terms included Medical Subject Headings, and free text to cover the following range of constructs: chewing gum, sugar free, oral health, caries, xerostomia, periodontal disease. Data extraction and Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three researchers using a modified version of the Cochrane RoB tool (version 1). Data synthesis was conducted using meta-analysis in STATA. RESULTS: Thirteen studies of SFG with micro-organisms as outcomes were identified. The use of SFG significantly reduced the load of Streptococcus mutans (effect size - 0.42; 95% CI - 0.60 to - 0.25) compared to all controls. In seven of the 13 studies the confidence intervals of the effect size estimate included zero, suggesting no effect of the intervention. Twelve trials used xylitol gum only as the basis of the intervention; xylitol gum significantly reduced the load of Streptococcus mutans (effect size - 0.46; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.28) in comparison to all controls. There was a moderate level of heterogeneity across the included studies. No adverse effects were recorded. CONCLUSION: Chewing SFG reduces the load of Streptococcus mutans in the oral cavity in comparison to non-chewing controls. Considering the degree of variability in the effect and the moderate quality of the trials included, there is a need for future research exploring the use SFG as a preventive measure for reducing the cariogenic oral bacterial load.

Patients' perceptions of oral cancer screening in dental practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer is increasing in incidence in the UK and indeed worldwide. Delay in diagnosis is common; up to half of patients are diagnosed with advanced lesions. Thus it is essential to develop methods to aid early detection. This study aimed to assess dental patients' experiences and awareness of oral cancer and screening within general dental practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of 184 English-speaking adults, with no previous history of oral cancer was conducted. The questionnaire collected data on participant's knowledge of oral cancer, experience of 'screening', attitudes and feelings towards having a screening, anticipated help-seeking behaviours, health-related behaviours (particularly risk factors) and sociodemographics. RESULTS: Twenty percent of respondents had never heard of oral cancer; 77% knew little or nothing about it and 72% did not know that their Dentist routinely screens for oral cancer. Overall, attitudes to screening were positive. Ninety two percent of respondents would like their Dentist to tell them if they were being screened for signs of oral cancer and 97% would like help from their Dentists to reduce their risk. CONCLUSION: Patients seem generally unaware of oral cancer screening by their dentist but are happy to take part in screening, would like to be informed, and welcome the support of their Dentist to reduce their risk of developing oral cancer.