Improving predoctoral education related to caries risk assessment in adults.

OBJECTIVES: This project examined patterns of adult patient management using a caries risk assessment (CRA) protocol at East Carolina University, School of Dental Medicine. Usage of the CRA protocol from 2014 to 2019 was assessed. Non-operative anti-caries treatments were measured against caries risk status (high, moderate, low, or none). Steps to improve the appropriate management of patients based on caries risk are presented to align with accreditation standards for predoctoral education programs. METHODS: The CRA protocol is based on the Caries Management by Risk Assessment approach. Risk-based patterns for two non-operative interventions were examined: (1) prescriptions for 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) mouth rinse and (2) prescriptions for 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste (PreviDent 5000 [PreviDent]). Statistical analyses included chi-square tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Over the study period only 16.4% of adult patients had completed the CRA form. Among 29,411 patients from nine community sites, treatment rates for PreviDent were 18.7% among high-risk patients, 11.6% for moderate-risk adults, and 6.4% for low-risk adults (p < 0.01). Treatment rates for CHX were 23.0%, 22.6%, and 17.1%, respectively (p < 0.05). Patients without a CRA status were least likely to receive any anti-caries treatments, indicating that CRA status affects clinical, non-operative care. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns for prescription of PreviDent and CHX are consistent with CRA status. Future efforts to improve usage of the CRA protocol using faculty calibration, tracking with quality improvement tools, and reassessment. Training in the community-based educational setting is enhanced through data-based tracking to assure evidence-based decision making.

High sugar intake from sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with prevalence of untreated decay in US adults: NHANES 2013-2016.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between sugar from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and untreated decay in permanent teeth and calculate the cost burden of sugar from SSBs on untreated decay in US adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were analysed in 2020 (n = 9001 adults aged ≥20). Multivariable analyses assessed sugar intake from SSB consumption with the presence of untreated decay in permanent teeth and number of untreated decayed teeth. Population attributable risk was used to estimate the cost burden arising from SSBs on untreated decay in US adults. RESULTS: One fourth (25.1%) of US adults had untreated dental decay, and higher prevalence was observed among those with low income, low education and race/ethnicity of non-Hispanic Black. Overall, 53% of adults reported no intake of SSBs. For the remaining 47%, the median 24-h intake was 46.8 g of sugar from SSBs. The adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) for untreated decay was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) for consumption of 46.8 g or more of sugar from SSBs compared to those reporting no sugar from SSBs. Number of untreated decayed teeth increased with sugar intake from SSBs from lowest to highest tertile: 0.1, (p = .35); 0.4, (p = .006); and 0.6, (p < .001). The cost burden of untreated decay attributable to SSBs in US adults is estimated conservatively at $1.6 billion USD. CONCLUSIONS: Community level interventions directed at sugar from SSBs are justified to address disparities in the burden of untreated dental decay.

Clinical Instructions for Using Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) in Dental Caries Management.

Manufacturer instructions for 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) are limited to current FDA clearance for tooth desensitization. There is a need for instructions to provide best-practice recommendations for off-label use of SDF for caries prevention and arrest. METHODS: The authors considered existing clinical approaches to the use of 38% SDF at pH 10 for the prevention and arrest of active dental caries, in light of the best current evidence. Application of SDF, with or without subsequent direct restoration, is included. The content was reviewed by stakeholders including but not limited to those listed on the consensus statement (Appendix A, below). RESULTS: 38% SDF for the prevention and arrest of active caries lesions, as well as compatibility with common direct restorative materials, such as glass-ionomer cement and resin composite, has a foundation in the scientific literature. A practical decision-flow diagram and accompanying best practices for treatment of caries lesions, based on clinical access and intention to restore, were developed based on available evidence and expert clinical observation when no evidence was available. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best available evidence, a logical approach can be adopted regarding the practical use of 38% SDF for caries prevention and arrest. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SDF used as per these instructions for prevention on high-risk tooth surfaces and arrest of active caries lesions has a place in the practitioner's dental caries management armamentarium. When SDF is applied to active lesions, it can be used with or without subsequent restoration, depending on clinical context, expert judgment, and patient input.