Predicting Dental Caries in Young Children in Primary Health Care Settings.

Young children need increased access to dental prevention and care. Targeting high caries risk children first helps meet this need. The objective of this study was to develop a parent-completed, easy-to-score, short, accurate caries risk tool for screening in primary health care settings to identify children at increased risk for cavities. A longitudinal, prospective, multisite, cohort study enrolled (primarily through primary health care settings) and followed 985 (out of 1,326) 1-y-old children and their primary caregivers (PCGs) until age 4. The PCG completed a 52-item self-administered questionnaire, and children were examined using the International Caries Detection and Assessment Criteria (ICDAS) at 12 ± 3 mo (baseline), 30 ± 3 mo (80% retention), and 48 ± 3 mo of age (74% retention). Cavitated caries lesion (dmfs = decayed, missing, and filled surfaces; d = ICDAS ≥3) experience at 4 y of age was assessed and tested for associations with questionnaire items using generalized estimating equation models applied to logistic regression. Multivariable analysis used backward model selection, with a limit of 10 items. At age 4, 24% of children had cavitated-level caries experience; 49% were female; 14% were Hispanic, 41% were White, 33% were Black, 2% were other, and 10% were multiracial; 58% enrolled in Medicaid; and 95% lived in urban communities. The age 4 multivariable prediction model, using age 1 responses (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.73), included the following significant (P < 0.001) variables (odds ratios): child participating in public assistance programs such as Medicaid (1.74), being non-White (1.80-1.96), born premature (1.48), not born by caesarean section (1.28), snacking on sugary snacks (3 or more/d, 2.22; 1-2/d or weekly, 1.55), PCG cleaning the pacifier with juice/soda/honey or sweet drink (2.17), PCG daily sharing/tasting food with child using same spoon/fork/glass (1.32), PCG brushing their teeth less than daily (2.72), PCG's gums bleeding daily when brushing or PCG having no teeth (1.83-2.00), and PCG having cavities/fillings/extractions in past 2 y (1.55). A 10-item caries risk tool at age 1 shows good agreement with cavitated-level caries experience by age 4.

A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial of 38% SDF vs. Restorative Treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this 2-arm, parallel-group, 12-mo randomized clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of semiannual application of 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) versus restorative treatment (RT) to manage cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth in a diverse population of children in Michigan. METHODS: Children aged 2 to 10 y with at least 1 soft cavitated lesion (International Caries Detection and Assessment System 5 or 6) with no pain or signs/symptoms of irreversible pulpitis were recruited and randomly assigned to 2 intervention groups. One random lesion per child received 38% SDF (twice, at a 6-mo interval) or RT. All interventions and assessments were done by calibrated dentists. Primary outcome measures were clinical failure rates: minor (e.g., reversible pulpitis, active/soft lesion or progression, restoration loss or need for replacement/repair, secondary caries) and major (e.g., irreversible pulpitis, abscess, extraction). Parent, child, and provider acceptability was also assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-eight children were enrolled and randomized, with a mean (SD) age of 4.8 y (1.8); 46% were female and their mean dmft + DMFT was 6.3 (3.9). Sixty-nine children were assessed at 12 mo (sample was within the planned 30% attrition rate). There were significantly more teeth with minor failures (SDF = 65%, RT = 23%, P ≤ 0.001) and major failures (SDF = 13%, RT = 3%, P ≤ 0.001) in the SDF group than the RT group; 74% of SDF-treated lesions were hard at 12 mo vs. 57% at 6 mo. Providers stated that SDF was easier, faster, and more preferable than RT (P ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were found in parental satisfaction and acceptability. At 12 mo, children in the RT arm felt significantly (P < 0.05) happier with their tooth appearance and stated that their visit to the dentist hurt less. CONCLUSION: At 12 mo, SDF-treated lesions had significantly more minor and major failures than RT, suggesting that SDF-treated teeth need to be closely monitored in a population at high caries risk (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02601833). KNOWLEDGE OF TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by clinicians when deciding whether to restore or apply silver diamine fluoride to cavitated lesions in primary teeth. Information on treatment outcomes and parent, child, and provider acceptability can help guide appropriate treatment decisions and need for monitoring.

Impact of COVID-19 on Life Experiences of Essential Workers Attending a Dental Testing Facility.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To compare the impact of COVID-19 on the life experiences of essential workers attending a COVID-19 antibody testing clinic at a dental school. 2) To compare responses of dental, non-dental health care, and non-health care essential workers. 3) To assess acceptability/satisfaction of testing done in a dental setting. METHOD: A total of 984 participants completed a self-administered online questionnaire. RESULTS: Over 90% were healthy (i.e., not in a high-risk health-related group for COVID-19), did not have COVID-19 symptoms within 30 d, and always/frequently engaged in preventive measures. Fifty-eight percent thought that they had a 0% to 25% chance of having immunity/antibodies to COVID-19. Non-dental health care workers thought that their chance was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than others. Over 70% were sometimes, frequently, or always worried about their friends and loved ones getting COVID-19 and of resulting financial problems. Dental workers were significantly less afraid than non-dental health care and non-health care providers. For all groups, more than half of the respondents stated that the pandemic had a negative (somewhat worse or worse) impact on daily life (59%), interactions with others (65%), stress levels (66%), and enjoyment of life (56%). There were significant differences among all 3 groups regarding the percentage of individuals with a negative impact on job security (dental, 47%; non-dental health care, 34%; non-health care, 31%). However, more than half of the respondents stated that the pandemic had a positive impact (same, somewhat better, or much better) on caring about one another, self-care, and exercise. Knowing the results of an antibody test would decrease the level of stress and anxiety in 67% of respondents. Over 80% found a COVID-19 test received in a dental setting acceptable, were "definitely" satisfied, and would "definitely" recommend it to a friend, family, or coworker. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support that dental workers are as vulnerable as other essential workers to threats and psychological impacts of COVID-19. They also support the acceptability and satisfaction of testing for a pandemic done in a dental setting. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study highlight the impact that pandemics such as COVID-19 can have on life experiences of essential workers, including dentists. It also highlights a role that dentistry can play within the broader health care system, during and beyond the current pandemic, to help with surveillance efforts of community health. Testing may also help alleviate stress and anxiety associated with these pandemics.

Predicting Caries in Medical Settings: Risk Factors in Diverse Infant Groups.

Expanded partnership with the medical community is a promising strategy for reducing disparities in dental caries among young children. However, no validated caries risk instrument exists for use in primary health care settings. To help resolve this gap, a 52-item caries risk questionnaire was developed and targeted to primary caregivers (PCGs) to test in a 3-y prospective study. To begin to understand the validity of the questionnaire items, the purpose of this study was to compare responses to the questionnaire based on key demographic characteristics known to be associated with disparities in caries experience (e.g., race/ethnicity and insurance status). A total of 1,323 one-year-old children were recruited primarily through 3 medical research networks. Baseline questionnaire responses were analyzed via logistic regression. The sample was 49% female. Its racial/ethnic makeup was as follows: 13% Hispanic, 37% White, 37% Black, and 13% other or multiracial. Sixty-one percent were enrolled in Medicaid, and 95% resided in urban communities. Mothers represented 94% of PCGs. There were significant differences ( P < 0.05) in baseline responses based on Medicaid status and race/ethnicity. As compared with those not enrolled in Medicaid, children in the Medicaid group were significantly more likely (after adjusting for race/ethnicity) to 1) go to sleep while nursing or drinking something other than water, 2) eat sugary snacks between meals, 3) consume sugary drinks between meals, 4) receive topical fluoride from a health professional, 5) visit the dentist, and 6) not have an employed adult in the household. PCGs of children enrolled in Medicaid were significantly more likely to be the mother, have bleeding gums, eat sugary snacks between meals, consume sugary drinks between meals, eat or drink something other than water before going to bed, and not get regular dental checkups. In conclusion, there are significant differences in caries risk questionnaire responses based on Medicaid status and race/ethnicity that provide construct and criterion validity to the developed caries risk tool (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01707797).