Feasibility of minimum intervention oral healthcare delivery for individuals with dental phobia.

BACKGROUND: People with dental phobia often present with more active dental caries and fewer teeth. Minimally Intervention oral Healthcare offers a possible solution to address the high care needs of this group. The aim was to determine this patient group's eligibility and willingness to participate and the effect of MIOC, compared to treatment as usual (TAU), on their oral health outcomes for planning a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). Minimum intervention oral healthcare (MIOC) comprises of four interlinked domains. In the first domain, we identified and diagnosed the disease status and participants' anxiety status (≥ 19 MDAS). In the second domain, an individualised prevention-based personalised care plan was designed. During this process, patients with dental phobia were exposed to the dental environment in a stepped manner ('graded exposure') and had their urgent care provided with conscious sedation. In the 3rd domain, we took a minimally invasive operative approach to restore teeth while preserving tooth substance and limiting the use of fear-provoking stimuli (e.g., rotary instruments) when possible. At the review and the recall appointment(s) (4th domain), the patients' oral health care behaviours, disease risk/susceptibility and fear levels were re-assessed. METHODS: This two-arm randomised feasibility trial (N = 44) allocated participants to the experimental arm (MIOC) or the control arm (treatment as usual [TAU]). The primary outcomes were the eligibility and willingness to participate and feasibility to conduct a trial of MIOC for people with dental phobia. The secondary outcomes were oral health status, oral health related quality of life and care completion. A written and verbal consent for participation and dental care provision were obtained. RESULTS: Forty-four people diagnosed with dental phobia were allocated randomly to the two study arms. At the six-month recall after completed care, the outcome of each study arm was assessed. It was feasible to conduct a clinical trial (eligibility rate [56%], completion rate [81%], declined to participate [12%]). The intervention group showed improvements in all health care outcomes, and oral health related quality of life. CONCLUSION: A clinical trial of MIOC vs TAU in people with dental phobia is feasible. Preliminary findings suggest that patients in the MIOC arm are more likely to successfully complete their course of treatment. The study was 'retrospectively registered' on 02/05/2018 (ISRCT15294714) with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCT).

Labels and descriptions of dental behaviour support techniques: A scoping review of clinical practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: There is no agreed taxonomy of the techniques used to support patients to receive professional oral healthcare. This lack of specification leads to imprecision in describing, understanding, teaching and implementing behaviour support techniques in dentistry (DBS). METHODS: This review aims to identify the labels and associated descriptors used by practitioners to describe DBS techniques, as a first step in developing a shared terminology for DBS techniques. Following registration of a protocol, a scoping review limited to Clinical Practice Guidelines only was undertaken to identify the labels and descriptors used to refer to DBS techniques. RESULTS: From 5317 screened records, 30 were included, generating a list of 51 distinct DBS techniques. General anaesthesia was the most commonly reported DBS (n = 21). This review also explores what term is given to DBS techniques as a group (Behaviour management was most commonly used (n = 8)) and how these techniques were categorized (mainly distinguishing between pharmacological and non-pharmacological). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to generate a list of techniques that can be selected for patients and marks an initial step in future efforts at agreeing and categorizing these techniques into an accepted taxonomy, with all the benefits this brings to research, education, practice and patients.

Achieving consensus on priorities for future behavioural and social research into social inequalities-Results of polling attendees at the BEHSR/IADR Summit on Behavioral and Social Oral Health Sciences.

AIM: To explore the priority given by researchers working in the field of behavioural, epidemiological and health services research to key aspects of research in oral health and inequalities. METHOD: Survey of registrants at the Behavioural Epidemiological and Health Services Research group of the International Association for Dental Research (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020. FINDINGS: The highest ranking for priority was given to 'Testing interventions to reducing oral health inequalities', and within this area to the exploration of public health approaches to reducing such disparities. Lower ranking priorities included 'Describing inequalities within countries' and 'Describing the mechanisms by which inequality produces poor health'. CONCLUSIONS: Registrants at the (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020 gave priority to testing interventions which will seek to reduce oral health inequalities, particularly through public health approaches such as creating policy change and community level interventions. Epidemiological research describing inequalities within countries was given a lower priority.

How do dental practitioners, educators and students diagnose and manage caries risk and caries lesions? A COM-B analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS™), a comprehensive, evidence-informed, best clinical practice system, comprises a 4D cycle: 1D-Determine risk; 2D-Detect and assess lesions; 3D-Decide on a personalized care plan; and 4D-Do preventive and tooth-preserving care. The aim of this study was to establish how Colombian dental practitioners, educators and students diagnose and manage caries risk and caries lesions using the COM-B model and the ICCMS™ system. METHODS: A total of 1094 participants (practitioners: n = 277; educators: n = 212; students: n = 605) completed a previously validated 79-item questionnaire which explores, based on the COM-B model, the practitioners' self-reported caries diagnosis and management behaviours. Descriptive statistics, Welch's ANOVAs and multiple linear regressions were computed. RESULTS: All groups generally performed the behaviours within the 4-D categories 'Most of the time' to 'Always' (students: 4.06 ± 0.95; educators: 3.94 ± 0.98; practitioners: 3.86 ± 1.01). The most frequently performed diagnosis behaviours (1D/2D) were for practitioners assessing initial/moderate lesions (4.09 ± 1.01) and for educators and students cleaning teeth before lesion assessment (4.41 ± 0.80 and 4.38 ± 0.77 respectively). The least frequently performed decision/management (3D/4D) behaviour was non-operative care for moderate-caries lesions (when applicable) (practitioners: 2.64 ± 1.23; educators: 2.68 ± 1.17; students: 3.22 ± 1.41). Opportunity (Resources and Relevance) was the best COM-B predictor for diagnostic behaviours, whereas capability and opportunity (Relevance) were the strongest predictors for management behaviours. CONCLUSION: Colombian practitioners, educators and students diagnose and manage caries risk and caries lesions implementing best practice with a high to very high frequency.

Using behaviour change science to deliver oral health practice: A commentary.

The aims of this commentary are threefold; firstly, we summarize changes in oral health behaviour change research and practice; secondly, we identify key barriers and challenges proposing practical ways to overcome them; and finally, we showcase key developments on the global and local stage outlining key opportunities for the future of oral health behaviour change. Not applicable. Advancements, including the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation (COM-B), Motivation, Action regulation-Prompts (MAP) and the Goal setting, Planning and Self-Monitoring (GPS) models have showcased a range of evidence-based opportunities to deliver oral health behaviour change. Despite their merits, oral health behaviour change still faces barriers and challenges that limit its scope, applicability and practicability for oral health professionals. Recent developments on the global and local stage have highlighted the important role oral health behaviour change has to play for the future of oral health. We provide practical examples to show how these advancements can be delivered in practice, noting that learnings from other disciplines can help shape the future of oral health behaviour change. A combination of encouraging signs and recent, positive developments have resulted in an unprecedented focus on oral health behaviour change. Through ongoing and future research, meaningful changes to the oral health of the population through applied behavioural science are in sight.

Patients' and parents' expectations of orthodontic treatment in university settings.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to compare patients' and parents' orthodontic treatment expectations at the Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY (UR) in the United States. Secondary aims were to assess the association between sociodemographic factors and UR participants' expectations; and compare participants' expectations between UR, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA) and King's College Dental Hospital, London, United Kingdom (KC) (previously published data). METHODS: One hundred and forty participants [70 patients and one of their parents (n = 70)] completed a validated questionnaire (10 questions) to measure orthodontic treatment expectations before screening at the Orthodontic Department at UR. Various sociodemographic factors were assessed. The paired t test (for continuous responses) and the Fisher exact test (for categorical responses) were used to compare UR patients' and parents' responses. Two-sample t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare participants' responses among sociodemographic groups. One-way analysis of variance followed by the Tukey test, and the Fisher exact test were used to compare participants' responses between UR, and ACTA and KC (data collected from previous publications). A multiplicity correction was performed to control the false discovery rate. RESULTS: Patients at UR expected less check-up and diagnosis, and less discussion about treatment at the initial visit, more dietary restrictions, and less improvement in smile esthetics and social confidence with orthodontic treatment than parents. Participants' responses differed by sociodemographic factors at UR and between UR, ACTA, and KC. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations of orthodontic treatment differ between patients and their parents, are associated with sociodemographic factors, and vary among United States and European University centers.

Minimum intervention oral healthcare for people with dental phobia: a patient management pathway.

Dental phobia is relatively common among adults and often associated with poorer oral health as a consequence of delaying dental treatment until advanced disease has caused intolerable symptoms. The increased rates of active disease may also have an impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHR QoL).Minimum intervention oral healthcare (MIOC) combines four key domains: detection and diagnosis, prevention and control of oral disease, minimally invasive (MI) operative interventions and review/recall. Team delivery and patient-focused care are the underpinning tenets to these four domains. The MIOC approach offers advantages to both patients with dental phobia and the oral healthcare team involved in their long-term management. This paper presents an adaptation of MIOC for patients with dental phobia, which is founded on a comprehensive assessment approach followed by the provision of dental care with behavioural management techniques in combination with conscious sedation. This approach has the potential to provide a comprehensive personalised patient management pathway for delivering better oral health for this vulnerable patient group in a primary care setting.

The impact of dental anxiety on the oral health of children aged 5 and 8 years: a regression analysis of the Child Dental Health Survey 2013.

Introduction Dental anxiety and fear is widely prevalent in the population, including children. This research is a further analysis of the Child Dental Health Survey 2013, to explore the impact of dental anxiety on factors relating to oral health.Aim To explore the relationship between dental anxiety and oral health and the impact dental anxiety has on the quality of family life.Design Regression analysis of data of 4,916 children aged 5 years and 8 years who participated in the Child Dental Health Survey 2013.Setting National Epidemiological Survey in schools in the UK.Materials and methods A series of logistic regression analyses was carried out for markers of oral health and impact of the child's oral health on the family's quality of life. The variables entered as predictors in the models included dental anxiety, socio demographic status and oral health-related behaviours.Results Dental anxiety was associated with poorer oral health on nearly all measures (decay experience p = <0.001, active decay p = <0.001, primary tooth being restored p = 0.010, signs of oral infection p = 0.007) and had a greater impact on their family's quality of life (p = <0.001).Conclusions Dentally anxious children have more dental disease and this has a greater impact on their family's quality of life.

How does dental anxiety affect the oral health of adolescents? A regression analysis of the Child Dental Health Survey 2013.

Introduction Dental phobia has been widely studied but there is limited research on the effect of dental phobia on oral health. This research is an analysis of the 2013 Child Dental Health Survey, to explore the impact of dental anxiety on factors relating to oral health in the adolescents.Aim To examine if dental anxiety predicts poor oral health in 12- and 15-year-olds.Design Regression analysis of data from 4,950 children aged 12 years and 15 years who participated in the Child Dental Health Survey 2013.Setting National epidemiological survey of UK schools.Materials and methods A series of logistic regressions was carried out to examine if dental anxiety, socio demographic factors and oral health-related behaviour could predict oral health status, the impact of the child's oral health on their own quality of life and the impact of their oral health on the family's quality of life. Additional outcomes examined were self-perceived dental health and general health.Results Dental anxiety was not a predictor of poor oral health but did predict a greater impact of the child's oral health on everyday life. Adolescents with dental anxiety had negative thoughts regarding their dental and general health.Conclusions Dental anxiety affects the everyday life and psychological wellbeing of adolescents.

The effects of providing periodontal disease risk information on psychological outcomes - a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: In a two arm randomized controlled trial this study compared the effects of a routine periodontal assessment consultation versus a routine consultation + individualized risk assessment communication intervention on patient thoughts and emotions about periodontal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults (N = 102) with moderate/advanced chronic periodontitis referred to a Periodontology Department of a large UK dental school, completed psychological measures before a periodontal assessment and again at the end of the visit. Intervention participants received an individualized calculation of their periodontal disease risk using PreViser Risk Calculator in addition to their routine assessment consultation. RESULTS: In routine care, patients' thoughts about periodontal disease seriousness (p < 0.001) and susceptibility (p < 0.03) increased post-consultation and participants felt more positive (p < 0.02) about periodontal disease. These effects were also seen in intervention participants. Additionally, the individualized risk communication intervention led to patients reporting i) periodontal disease treatment as more effective than they did pre-consultation (p < 0.001), ii) feeling more confident in their ability to adhere to treatment as seen in increases in self-efficacy (p < 0.05) and iii) higher intentions to adhere to periodontal management (p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Individualized periodontal disease risk communication influences psychological variables that underpin adherence with periodontal instructions.

The contributions of behaviour change science towards dental public health practice: a new paradigm.

Conventional behavioural models, such as social cognition models, to improve oral health have been proposed for a long time but have failed to consistently explain reliable amounts of variability in human behaviours relevant to oral health. This paper introduces current work from the behavioural sciences aiming to better understand the process through which behaviour change may take place. Given the shortcomings seen so far in attempts to explain behaviour through traditional models it is proposed that a new approach is adopted. This commentary outlines this new approach, grounded in current work by mainstream behaviour change experts. We propose that attempts to use unreliable theoretical models to explain and predict oral health behaviour should now be replaced by work following this new paradigm.