The COVID-19 Pandemic and Dental Professionals' Infection Risk Perception: An International Survey.

A global survey among dentists was used to identify the various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on this professional group. Special attention was given to perception and assessment of infection risk. From May to August 2020, the questionnaire was delivered in 36 countries by respective research groups and was completed by 52,491 dental professionals. The survey was designed as a cross-sectional survey based on a previously standardized questionnaire. This study focuses on the part of the questionnaire that deals with the perception of the infection risk of COVID-19 by dentists and their patients. A logistic regression model was used, which consisted of four Likert items as response options and the additional self-reported routine or emergency treatment as the dependent variable. Analysis by continent found that European and Asian dentists were particularly likely to be infected at work (OR = 1.45 95%CI = 1.02/1.84 and OR = 2.68, 95%CI = 1.45/3.22, respectively), while it was likely that Australian dentists did not feel particularly at risk due to low infection rates. Three quarters of Americans treated only emergencies during this survey period, while Europeans (64.71%) and Asians (66.67%) provided mostly routine care. This could affect the Europeans' confidence that they would not be able to protect themselves from infections in the long-term. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on dental professionals' infection risk perception is determined by the geographical origin of dentists. This study shows that, especially in high-incidence countries, infection risk perception was higher when dentists tried to provide routine dental procedures to their patients. Dental professionals can offer themselves and their patients good protection by maintaining high standards of hygiene. However, their concerns should be taken seriously and the dental professionals' group that is of great importance for oral health care and prevention, should not be neglected in the future, even in the event of emerging pandemics.

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.

Review of 1.75 million referrals over 34 months identifies the disruptive impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on oral surgery care in England: a service evaluation.

Aims This study aimed to use electronic referral management system (eRMS) oral surgery data across multiple sites in England to evaluate the service over a 34-month period in relation to: 1) pre- and post-pandemic referral rates in oral surgery; 2) examining the data for signs of inequality in obtaining a referral for oral surgery; and 3) considering the impact on service provision for oral surgery in England.Methods Oral surgery referral data were available from an eRMS for areas of England covered by this service for the 34-month period of March 2019 to December 2021 (inclusive), which included 12 months of pre-pandemic data and the first 22 months of the pandemic. The data were from the following regions in England: Central Midlands; Cheshire and Merseyside; East Anglia and Essex; Greater Manchester; Lancashire; Thames Valley; and Yorkshire and the Humber.Results The total number of referrals received was 1,766,895 during this 34-month period, with pre-pandemic referral levels averaging at 25,498 per month, with a reduction to 698 per month in April 2020. Referrals have risen to a peak of 217,646 for the month of November 2021. An average of 1.5% of referrals were rejected pre-pandemic, compared with 2.7% per month post-pandemic.Discussion Pre-pandemic referral numbers were predictably stable within a narrow range which have then increased dramatically post-pandemic. The variations in oral surgery referral patterns place significant strain on oral surgery services across England. This not only has consequences on the patient experience, but also on workforce and workforce development, to ensure that there is not a long-term destabilising impact.Conclusion Analysis of 1.75 million referrals to oral surgery services in England has highlighted the ongoing impact of the pandemic and the need to actively minimise adverse impacts on patients, NHS services and the workforce.

Development and validation of an International Patient's Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire. RESULTS: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty-three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non-essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test-run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test-re-test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3-0.7, most p < .0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed-methods approach enabled the development of a multi-language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally.

Improving the fit of filtering facepiece respirators.

Aims To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of smartphone customised frame technology to improve the fit of disposable filtering facepiece class 3 (FFP3) respirators for dental staff who previously failed fit testing.Method In total, 20 volunteers who previously failed FFP3 fit testing were recruited to use smartphone technology (Bellus3D FaceApp) to have a 3D-printed bespoke face frame produced for them. They underwent qualitative fit testing with and without the frame with two freely available disposable FFP3 respirator designs (mask A: GVS F31000 Segre folded model; mask B: Valmy Spireor). The order of testing was random. Ease of use of the smartphone technology and the comfort of the frame were determined by questionnaire.Results Fit test passes increased from 5% without the frame to 70% and 95%, respectively, for masks A and B with the frame (p <0.01). Very few participants reported using the technology as difficult (n = 1/20) or the frame uncomfortable (n = 3/20) or difficult to wear (n = 0/20).Conclusion Customised frames produced using smartphone technology improved qualitative fit test pass rates for two commonly available FFP3 respirators. Using smartphone technology for frame design, wearing a frame and frame comfort levels were all acceptable to the majority of participants.

Foundation dentists supporting vaccination programmes in England.

Background In 2020/21, as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response and for the first time in England, newly qualified foundation dentists (FDs) were trained to participate in flu and COVID-19 vaccination programmes to offer additional workforce capacity. The largest of these efforts was in Yorkshire and the Humber where 106 FDs were trained and ready to mobilise. The aim of this service evaluation was to appraise the use of FDs in delivering vaccinations.Methods Mixed methods using an online questionnaire to FDs and in-depth remote interviews conducted with host organisations, Public Health England, Health Education England and others.Results The questionnaire response rate was 89% (n = 94), with 54 FDs having participated in vaccinations at a rate of 50-100 vaccines per day. All were confident with flu vaccine administration and most (n = 44/54) with COVID-19 vaccination. Eleven stakeholder interviews were conducted. Main barriers included the siloed delivery of dental care from other health services, resulting in collaborative barriers and a lack of understanding about the profession's skillsets. Facilitators included host organisations' capacity to hold multiple honorary contracts and provide competency sign-off.Conclusion Utilising the dental workforce to deliver vaccinations was feasible at a time of crisis and when trainees' access to dental patients was limited.

CariesCare International adapted for the pandemic in children: Caries OUT multicentre single-group interventional study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this "Caries OUT" study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. METHODS: In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children's oral-health behaviour change, parents' and dentists' process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3-5 and 6-8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments' time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5-5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child's CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents' and dentists' process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. DISCUSSION: The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h . Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021.

Maintaining and improving mouth care for care home residents: A participatory research project.

BACKGROUND: Many people residing in nursing or residential care homes (also called long-term care facilities) live with physical or cognitive difficulties. Staff working in these environments often help residents (particularly those with more advanced dementia) with their personal care needs, including maintaining mouth care and health. Poor oral health is associated with many difficulties, including increased risk of respiratory problems, pain and discomfort. Yet, concerns have been raised that staff may not have the knowledge and skills to effectively support residents with oral care and health. There is therefore an important gap between what is known about the importance of maintaining oral health (scientific evidence) and daily practice in long-term care environments. OBJECTIVES: To work with care home staff: (1) to create a learning culture to address how to promote mouth care for residents, particularly when a resident resists support with this aspect of care; and (2) to effect mouth care practice changes (if required) using participatory and inclusive research cycles. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. Four participatory research 'cycles' were conducted. Cycle one explored existing literature to develop accessible guidance on strategies that staff could use to support residents to maintain and improve oral care, particularly when a resident may resist such care. Cycle two built on this review to determine knowledge levels within the care team. This highlighted deficiencies in staff knowledge, skills and competence for providing mouth care and their need for training to address this. Cycle three identified evidence-based strategies to develop staff understanding and knowledge. Cycle four brought together experts from nursing, dentistry, behaviour change, systematic reviews and care homes research to develop a grant application to progress this work further. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an example of the processes undertaken in a participatory research project, bringing together science and practice to improve an essential area of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using participatory research approaches in this setting can allow the effective translation of uncertainties in care and practice into questions that can be addressed by research, leading to meaningful outcomes for those living and working in care homes.

Study Protocol for an Online Questionnaire Survey on Symptoms/Signs, Protective Measures, Level of Awareness and Perception Regarding COVID-19 Outbreak among Dentists. A Global Survey.

The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have developed preparedness and prevention checklists for healthcare professionals regarding the containment of COVID-19. The aim of the present protocol is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak among dentists in different countries where various prevalence of the epidemic has been reported. Several research groups around the world were contacted by the central management team. The online anonymous survey will be conducted on a convenience sample of dentists working both in national health systems and in private or public clinics. In each country/area, a high (~5-20%) proportion of dentists working there will be invited to participate. The questionnaire, developed and standardized previously in Italy, has four domains: (1) personal data; (2) symptoms/signs relative to COVID-19; (3) working conditions and PPE (personal protective equipment) adopted after the infection's outbreak; (4) knowledge and self-perceived risk of infection. The methodology of this international survey will include translation, pilot testing, and semantic adjustment of the questionnaire. The data will be entered on an Excel spreadsheet and quality checked. Completely anonymous data analyses will be performed by the central management team. This survey will give an insight into the dental profession during COVID-19 pandemic globally.

The FiCTION trial: Child oral health-related quality of life and dental anxiety across three treatment strategies for managing caries in young children.

OBJECTIVES: The FiCTION trial compared co-primary outcomes (dental pain and/or infection) and secondary outcomes (child oral health-related quality of life [COHRQOL], child dental anxiety, cost-effectiveness, caries development/progression and acceptability) across three treatment strategies (Conventional with Prevention [C + P]; Biological with Prevention [B + P]; Prevention Alone [PA]) for managing caries in children in primary care. COHRQOL and child dental anxiety experiences are reported upon here. METHODS: A multi-centre, 3-arm, parallel-group, unblinded patient-randomized controlled trial of 3- to 7-year-olds treated under NHS contracts was conducted in 72 general dental practices in England, Wales and Scotland. Child participants (with at least one primary molar with dentinal caries) were randomized (1:1:1) to one of three treatment arms with the intention of being managed according to allocated arm for 3 years (minimum 23 months). Randomization was via a centrally administered system using random permuted blocks of variable length. At baseline and final visit, accompanying parents/caregivers completed a parental questionnaire including COHRQOL (16 item P-CPQ-16), and at every visit, child- and parental-questionnaire-based data were collected for child-based dental trait and state anxiety. Statistical analyses were conducted on complete cases from the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis set. RESULTS: A total of 1144 children were randomized (C + P: 386; B + P: 381; PA: 377). The mITT analysis set included the 1058 children who attended at least one study visit (C + P: 352; B + P: 352; PA: 354). Median follow-up was 33.8 months (IQR: 23.8, 36.7). The P-CPQ-16 overall score could be calculated after simple imputation at both baseline and final visit for 560 children (C + P: 189; B + P: 189; PA: 182). There was no evidence of a difference in the estimated adjusted mean P-CPQ-16 at the final visit which was, on average, 0.3 points higher (97.5% CI: -1.1 to 1.6) in B + P than C + P and 0.2 points higher, on average, (97.5% CI: -1.2 to 1.5) in PA than for C + P. Child dental trait anxiety and child dental state anxiety, measured at every treatment visit, showed no evidence of any statistically or clinically significant difference between arms in adjusted mean scores averaged over all follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The differences noted in COHRQOL and child-based dental trait and dental state anxiety measures across three treatment strategies for managing dental caries in primary teeth were small, and not considered to be clinically meaningful. The findings highlight the importance of including all three strategies in a clinician's armamentarium, to manage childhood caries throughout the young child's life and achieve positive experiences of dental care.

Dental professionals' experiences of managing children with carious lesions in their primary teeth - a qualitative study within the FiCTION randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence for the effective management of carious lesions in children's primary teeth has caused uncertainty for the dental profession and patients. Possible approaches include conventional and biological management alongside best practice prevention, and best practice prevention alone. The FiCTION trial assessed the effectiveness of these options, and included a qualitative study exploring dental professionals' (DPs) experiences of delivering the different treatment arms. This paper reports on how DPs managed children with carious lesions within FiCTION and how this related to their everyday experiences of doing dentistry. METHODS: Overall, 31 DPs from FiCTION-trained dental surgeries in four regions of the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of the three treatment arms (conventional management of carious lesions and prevention (C + P), biological management of carious lesions and prevention (B + P) or prevention alone (PA)). A theoretical framework, drawing on social practice theory (SPT), was developed for analysis. RESULTS: Participants discussed perceived effectiveness of, and familiarity with, the three techniques. The C + P arm was familiar, but some participants questioned the effectiveness of conventional restorations. Attitudes towards the B + P arm varied in terms of familiarity, but once DPs were introduced to the techniques, this was seen as effective. While prevention was familiar, PA was described as ineffective. DPs manage children with carious lesions day-to-day, drawing on previous experience and knowledge of the child to provide what they view as the most appropriate treatment in the best interests of each child. Randomisation undermined these normal choices. Several DPs reported deviating from the trial arms in order to treat a patient in a particular way. Participants valued evidence-based dentistry, and expect to use the results of FiCTION to inform future practice. They anticipate continuing to use the full range of treatment options, and to personally select appropriate strategies for individual children. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs take place in the context of day-to-day practices of doing dentistry. DPs employ experiential and interpersonal knowledge to act in the best interests of their patients. Randomisation within a clinical trial can present a source of tension for DPs, which has implications for assuring individual equipoise in future trials.

Children and parents' perspectives on the acceptability of three management strategies for dental caries in primary teeth within the 'Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated or Not' (FiCTION) randomised controlled trial - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to explore the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of managing dental caries in children's primary teeth. The trial compared three management strategies: conventional caries management with best practice prevention (C + P), biological management with best practice prevention (B + P) and best practice prevention alone (PA)-based approaches. Recently, the concept of treatment acceptability has gained attention and attempts have been made to provide a conceptual definition, however this has mainly focused on adults. Recognising the importance of evaluating the acceptability of interventions in addition to their effectiveness, particularly for multi-component complex interventions, the trial design included a qualitative component. The aim of this component was to explore the acceptability of the three strategies from the perspectives of the child participants and their parents. METHODS: Qualitative exploration, based on the concept of acceptability. Participants were children already taking part in the FiCTION trial and their parents. Children were identified through purposive maximum variation sampling. The sample included children from the three management strategy arms who had been treated and followed up; median (IQR) follow-up was at 33.8 (23.8, 36.7) months. Semi-structured interviews with thirteen child-parent dyads. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after thirteen interviews. Each child-parent dyad took part in one interview together. The participants were eight girls and five boys aged 5-11 years and their parents. The children's distribution across the trial arms was: C + P n = 4; B + P n = 5; PA n = 4. Three key factors influenced the acceptability of caries management in primary teeth to children and parents: i) experiences of specific procedures within management strategies; ii) experiences of anticipatory dental anxiety and; iii) perceptions of effectiveness (particularly whether pain was reduced). These factors were underpinned by a fourth key factor: the notion of trust in the dental professionals - this was pervasive across all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall children and parents found each of the three strategies for the management of dental caries in primary teeth acceptable, with trust in the dental professional playing an important role.

Cost-effectiveness of child caries management: a randomised controlled trial (FiCTION trial).

BACKGROUND: A three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA). METHODS: Data on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: A total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (- 0.06; 97.5% CI: - 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (- 0.14; 97.5% CI: - 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Remuneration of primary dental care in England: a qualitative framework analysis of perspectives of a new service delivery model incorporating incentives for improved access, quality and health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe stakeholder perspectives of a new service delivery model in primary care dentistry incorporating incentives for access, quality and health outcomes. DESIGN: Data were collected through observations, interviews and focus groups. SETTING: This was conducted under six UK primary dental care practices, three working under the incentive-driven contract and three working under the traditional activity-based contract. PARTICIPANTS: Observations were made of 30 dental appointments. Eighteen lay people, 15 dental team staff and a member of a commissioning team took part in the interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Using a qualitative framework analysis informed by Andersen's model of access, we found oral health assessments influenced patients' perceptions of need, which led to changes in preventive behaviour. Dentists responded to the contract, with greater emphasis on prevention, use of the disease risk ratings in treatment planning, adherence to the pathways and the utilisation of skill-mix. Participants identified increases in the capacity of practices to deliver more care as a result. These changes were seen to improve evaluated and perceived health and patient satisfaction. These outcomes fed back to shape people's predispositions to visit the dentist. CONCLUSION: The incentive-driven contract was perceived to increase access to dental care, determine dentists' and patients' perceptions of need, their behaviours, health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Dentists face challenges in refocusing care, perceptions of preventive dentistry, deployment of skill mix and use of the risk assessments and care pathways. Dentists may need support in these areas and to recognise the differences between caring for individual patients and the patient-base of a practice.

CariesCare practice guide: consensus on evidence into practice.

This CariesCare practice guide is derived from the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) and provides a structured update for dentists to help them deliver optimal caries care and outcomes for their patients. This '4D cycle' is a practice-building format, which both prevents and controls caries and can engage patients as long-term health partners with their practice. CariesCare International (CCI™) promotes a patient-centred, risk-based approach to caries management designed for dental practice. This comprises a health outcomes-focused system that aims to maintain oral health and preserve tooth structure in the long-term. It guides the dental team through a four-step process (4D system), leading to personalised interventions: 1st D: Determine Caries Risk; 2nd D: Detect lesions, stage their severity and assess their activity status; 3rd D: Decide on the most appropriate care plan for the specific patient at that time; and then, finally, 4th D: Do the preventive and tooth-preserving care which is needed (including risk-appropriate preventive care; control of initial non-cavitated lesions; and conservative restorative treatment of deep dentinal and cavitated caries lesions). CariesCare International has designed this practice-friendly consensus guide to summarise best practice as informed by the best available evidence. Following the guide should also increase patient satisfaction, involvement, wellbeing and value, by being less invasive and more health-focused. For the dentist it should also provide benefits at the professional and practice levels including improved medico-legal protection.

Knowledge, attitude and practice among Health Visitors in the United Kingdom toward children's oral health.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine knowledge, attitude, and practical behavior of health visitors regarding children's oral health in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A web-based self-administered survey with 18 closed and 2 open ended questions was distributed to a convenience sample of approximately 9,000 health visitors who were currently employed in the United Kingdom and a member of the Institute of Health Visiting. RESULTS: A total of 1,088 health visitors completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 12%. One-third of the health visitors reported that they had not received oral health training previously. Almost all agreed that oral health advice/promotion should be included in their routine health visiting contacts. Previous oral health training/education was associated with an increase in oral health knowledge; confidence in entering a discussion with parents/caregivers and willingness to be involved in dental referral process. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study support the need for health visitors to receive oral health training in oral health promotion including oral health risk assessment, guidance on evidence based up-to-date prevention measures, increasing the dental attendance prevalence at early stages and awareness of including specific oral health guidelines/fact sheets into their regular practice.

Using High Fluoride Concentration Products in Public Policy: A Rapid Review of Current Guidelines for High Fluoride Concentration Products.

Despite improvements in dental caries levels since the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes, it is still a disease which is considered to be a priority in many countries around the world. Individuals at higher risk of caries can be targeted with products with a high fluoride concentration to help reduce the amount and severity of the disease. This paper compares guidance from around the world on the use of products with a high fluoride concentration and gives examples of how guidance has been translated into activity in primary care dental practice. A rapid review of electronic databases was conducted to identify the volume and variation of guidance from national or professional bodies on the use of products with a high fluoride concentration. Fifteen guidelines published within the past 10 years and in English were identified and compared. The majority of these guidelines included recommendations for fluoride varnish use as well as for fluoride gels, while a smaller number offered guidance on high fluoride strength toothpaste and other vehicles. Whilst there was good consistency in recommendations for fluoride varnish in particular, there was sometimes a lack of detail in other areas of recommendation for other vehicles with a high fluoride concentration. There are good examples within the UK, such as the Childsmile project and Delivering Better Oral Health, which highlight that the provision of evidence-based guidance can be influential in directing scarce resources towards oral health improvements. Policy can be influenced by evidence-based national recommendations and used to help encourage dental professionals and commissioners and third-party payers to adopt higher levels of practices aimed at oral health improvement.

The FiCTION dental trial protocol - filling children's teeth: indicated or not?

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence for effective management of dental caries (decay) in children's primary (baby) teeth and an apparent failure of conventional dental restorations (fillings) to prevent dental pain and infection for UK children in Primary Care. UK dental schools' teaching has been based on British Society of Paediatric Dentistry guidance which recommends that caries in primary teeth should be removed and a restoration placed. However, the evidence base for this is limited in volume and quality, and comes from studies conducted in either secondary care or specialist practices. Restorations provided in specialist environments can be effective but the generalisability of this evidence to Primary Care has been questioned. The FiCTION trial addresses the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme's commissioning brief and research question "What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of restoration caries in primary teeth, compared to no treatment?" It compares conventional restorations with an intermediate treatment strategy based on the biological (sealing-in) management of caries and with no restorations. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a Primary Care-based multi-centre, three-arm, parallel group, patient-randomised controlled trial. Practitioners are recruiting 1461 children, (3-7 years) with at least one primary molar tooth where caries extends into dentine. Children are randomized and treated according to one of three treatment approaches; conventional caries management with best practice prevention, biological management of caries with best practice prevention or best practice prevention alone. Baseline measures and outcome data (at review/treatment during three year follow-up) are assessed through direct reporting, clinical examination including blinded radiograph assessment, and child/parent questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of either pain or infection related to dental caries. Secondary outcomes are; incidence of caries in primary and permanent teeth, patient quality of life, cost-effectiveness, acceptability of treatment strategies to patients and parents and their experiences, and dentists' preferences. DISCUSSION: FiCTION will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing caries in children's primary teeth in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners in treatment decision making for child patients to minimize pain and infection in primary teeth. The trial is currently recruiting patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol ID: NCTU: ISRCTN77044005.

Urban-rural differences in dental caries of 5-year old children in Scotland.

Previous research suggests there are significant differences between urban and rural areas in Scotland for health outcomes including heart disease, cancer and self reported health. The aim of this study was to describe the contemporary urban/rural variation in obvious decay experience amongst 5-year-olds in Scotland. Scotland was split into 6 geographies, ranging from 'The 4 Cities' (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen) to 'Remote Rural' areas. Data derived from the 2007/08 National Dental Inspection Programme, representative of the whole of Scotland, were modelled using Bayesian multilevel zero-inflated Negative Binomial and multilevel Poisson modelling, adjusting for age, sex and deprivation. The outcome variables modelled were d(3)mft (carious, extracted or filled deciduous teeth), d(3)t (carious teeth), mt (missing teeth, extracted due to caries) and ft (filled teeth). The proportion of 5-year old children in Scotland with d(3)mft = 0 was 58% in 2008. Adjusting for age and sex, the odds of a child in a Remote Rural area having d(3)mft>0 was 0.52 that of a city dweller. However, when deprivation was included in the model, the odds of having d(3)mft >0 rose to 0.74. The odds of d(3)mft>0 in 'Accessible Rural' areas also remained significantly lower than in the 4 Cities after adjustment for deprivation. For those with d(3)mft>0, the relative risk of additional d(3)mft was also significantly lower in Remote Rural areas, however this was explained by deprivation, while in Accessible Rural areas this remained significant even after adjustment for deprivation. The odds of having any extractions was lower in Rural areas, even after adjustment for deprivation, while the Care Index (ft/d(3)mft) was higher in Remote Towns. Deprivation, therefore, accounted for much but not all of the geographical difference in d(3)mft which exist in Scotland. Children in Remote and Rural areas appear to have better dental health and a higher proportion of filled teeth when compared with those living in Cities. Possible reasons for these differences and recommendations for future research are discussed.