Variations in odontological care routines for patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancer in county councils/regions of Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate current odontological care routines for patients treated for head and neck cancers in the county councils/regions (C/Rs) of Sweden. METHODS: An invitation to fill in a web-based questionnaire was sent to dentists/dental hygienists working in dental clinics in the 12 C/Rs, treating and responsible for the odontological care of patients undergoing treatment for cancer of the head and neck. The questionnaire started with two mandatory and one non-mandatory questions, followed by questions regarding routines before (n = 28), during (n = 23), and after (n = 9) treatment, plus two additional questions, totalling 65 questions. RESULTS: Four dental hygienists and six dentists in 10 of the 12 C/Rs answered the questionnaire. Three C/Rs stated that they measure both the unstimulated and stimulated salivary secretion rate, and another C/R stated that they measure the stimulated secretion rate only. Similar recommendations were given regarding oral hygiene, salivary stimulants and substitutes, and extra fluoride. However, great variations were seen regarding recommendations for preventing and relieving oral mucositis. There were also discrepancies regarding information about the importance of avoiding smoking and alcohol. In seven C/Rs, patients visited the dental hygienist once a week during cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: The results suggests that there are great variations in odontological care given to patients undergoing treatment for cancer of the head and neck region in different county councils/regions in Sweden. There is a need to develop and implement evidence-based guidelines to decrease the risk of oral complications and increase both the quality of life and the quality of care.

Innovation in school-level dental risk assessment: an evidence based Index of Dental Risk.

Objectives and importance of study: An increase in hospitalisations for complicated dental decay among Western Australian children, particularly those who are disadvantaged, is well documented. An informed, targeted distribution of limited resources is needed to effectively assist children who are most at risk. This study developed an integrated school-by-school Index of Dental Risk based on known primary risk variables for dental decay, poverty and Indigenous status. STUDY TYPE: Population-based research. METHODS: All data were collected from open web-based sources that were freely available, so no ethics approval was required. All data were collected in 2011 from 1112 Western Australian schools. Data included the nationally agreed Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, and Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia. RESULTS: The Index of Dental Risk was categorised into four risk profiles for each Western Australian school: low (0-4), medium (5-9), medium-high (10-14) and high (15-18). We found that 57% of schools had a medium risk profile or higher (≥5). Nine schools had the highest risk category of 18. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to develop a simple Index of Dental Risk that can be applied at the individual school level to efficiently target resources. This evidence based resource allocation has the potential to reduce overall cost burdens of oral health-related pathology in the community.

Evaluation of dental trials comparing baseline differences using p values.

INTRODUCTION: Significance testing for comparison of the baseline differences between the intervention arms has received a strong condemnation. The goal of this study was to assess the prevalence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the baseline characteristics between intervention groups using significance tests in top ten impact factor dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs published in 10 high impact factor dental journals were searched in PubMed database. Literature search was limited to time duration of 5 years from September 2012 to August 2017. RESULTS: We analysed 521 RCTs after excluding 47 non-RCT articles from the total of 568 articles. Baseline demographic characteristics table was not reported in 45.9% of the RCTs and 26.2% of the RCTs did not report table of baseline clinical characteristics. In 38.9% of the studies, significance testing was employed to compare baseline differences between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Many trials published in the reputed dental journals failed to follow the recommendations of CONSORT statement regarding reporting of baseline tables and avoiding comparison of baseline differences with significance test.

How Evidence-Based Dentistry Has Shaped the Practice of Oral Medicine.

Oral medicine is "the discipline of dentistry concerned with the oral health care of medically complex patients, including the diagnosis and primarily nonsurgical treatment and/or management of medically related conditions affecting the oral and maxillofacial region." In each of these areas, evidence-based medicine has shaped theoretic understanding and clinical practice. The available evidence allows for improved patient management. Further evidence, as it becomes available, should be reviewed on a regular basis to guide our clinical practice.

Assessing the quality of dental clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of published dental clinical guidelines using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: Online searching of a wide range of organisations (national and International) was undertaken to identify dental clinical practice guidelines published between 2000 and 2014. The quality of each included guideline was assessed in relation to the AGREE II instrument by four assessors independently. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. Descriptive statistics and both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 162 guidelines were identified. The overall mean quality score was 51.9% (SD 13.3). There was variation in the reporting quality of individual domains with both Applicability (20.4%) and Editorial Independence (34.25%) poorly reported. Variation between the overall quality scores for guidelines produced by different dental specialities was evident. The quality of guidelines improved per publication year (ß=0.76, 95% CI: 0.26, 1.26, p=0.003). Guidelines based on formal evidence (ß=19.94, 95% CI: 15.25, 24.64, p=0.001) achieved higher quality scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, the quality of clinical dental practice guidelines is suboptimal. There is variation in the overall quality, reporting of individual items and domains of the AGREE II instrument between different dental speciality clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines based on formal evidence achieved higher quality scores. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the variation in the quality of dental clinical guidelines in particular related to methodological rigour. The use of formal evidence may be a useful indicator of their quality prior to their implementation.

An exploratory quality assessment of orthodontic clinical guidelines using the AGREE II instrument.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines act as a means of assisting clinicians in improving the quality of healthcare provided. We aim to assess the quality of currently available international orthodontic guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional systematic assessment of orthodontic clinical guidelines was undertaken. A Medline search using the keywords 'guideline', 'orthodontics', and 'dent', and search of specific dental and orthodontic organization websites for orthodontic-related clinical guidelines. Relevant guidelines published between 1999 and 2012 in English were identified. Draft guidelines and endorsements were excluded. The quality of each guideline was evaluated by a single calibrated assessor using the AGREE II instrument. Variation in the quality of guidelines produced by different organizations was also assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen guidelines were included in this study. Overall, the reporting of scope and purpose (84.31, 95% CI: 70.91-97.72) and clarity of presentation (75.49, 95% CI: 61.68-89.3) domains of the AGREE II instrument were deemed of high quality. Lower scores were obtained for the following domains: rigour of development (52.08, 95% CI: 37.59-66.57), editorial independence (47.06, 95% CI: 20.6-73.51), stakeholder agreement (46.41, 95% CI: 29.66-63.15), and applicability (27.45, 95% CI: 8.26-46.64). There was a noted difference in the individual domain scores of orthodontic guidelines produced by the different organizations. CONCLUSIONS: In relation to the AGREE II instrument, the quality of orthodontic guidelines for use in clinical practice are deemed sub-optimal. Variation in the quality of guidelines produced different organizations is evident.

Leading the Dental Quality Movement: A Dental Quality Alliance Perspective.

Changing regulatory priorities set forth by the Affordable Care Act and recent activities of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services clearly prioritize the need to improve the quality of health care in both the public and private sectors. As the largest multistakeholder organization focused on oral health care quality measurement and improvement, the Dental Quality Alliance is leading the way in establishing standardized and valid quality measures applicable in both private and public sectors.

Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants.

BACKGROUND: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents. A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated recommendations to address clinical questions in relation to the efficacy, retention, and potential side effects of sealants to prevent dental caries; their efficacy compared with fluoride varnishes; and a head-to-head comparison of the different types of sealant material used to prevent caries on pits-and-fissures of occlusal surfaces. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: This is an update of the ADA 2008 recommendations on the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on the effect of sealants (available on the U.S. market) when applied to the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the quality of the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The guideline panel formulated 3 main recommendations. They concluded that sealants are effective in preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents compared with the nonuse of sealants or use of fluoride varnishes. They also concluded that sealants could minimize the progression of non-cavitated occlusal carious lesions (also referred to as initial lesions) that receive a sealant. Finally, based on the available limited evidence, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations on the relative merits of 1 type of sealant material over the others. Conclusions and practical implications: These recommendations are designed to inform practitioners during the clinical decision-making process in relation to the prevention of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents. Clinicians are encouraged to discuss the information in this guideline with patients or the parents of patients. The authors recommend that clinicians re-orient their efforts toward increasing the use of sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents.

A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: X: How to avoid being misled by clinical studies' results in dentistry.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Clinicians using evidence to inform decisions on a daily basis have access to a number of tools to help them judge the importance of discriminating studies conducted using suboptimal methods from more rigorous ones. Many checklists have been developed to facilitate and guide clinicians to identify and critically appraise clinical studies. However, only limited guidance is available addressing how clinicians can identify misleading claims from those that can be supported reliably by study results. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this final article of a series of 10, the authors provide key concepts that clinicians can use to help them avoid using biased inferences or statements that are "too good to be true."

Dental Students' Use of AMSTAR to Critically Appraise Systematic Reviews.

The idea of basing clinical procedures upon evidence gathered by observation is less than 200 years old, with the first set of evidence-based position papers dating back only to the early 1970s. The relationship between evidence-based education and health outcomes is difficult to test and may be indirect, but teaching critical appraisal skills may be beneficial in developing knowledge. Systematic reviews have a central role in the process of clinical decision making in practice and therefore should be of high quality, following a rigorous protocol that can be evaluated with validated tools. The aim of this study was to assess how dental students utilized the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) appraisal tool to evaluate systematic reviews in the context of a treatment planning course. During the in-class final exam, students were required to appraise the quality of a systematic review and to justify their answers. Of the 74 third-year students who took the exam, 100% answered all questions on the AMSTAR form. The mean number of correct answers was nine (SD=1.047, Min=6, Max=10), with no student providing all 11 correct answers. The fact that nearly 90% of the students provided eight or more correct answers suggests that AMSTAR can be used by students to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews. It also was evident that although the AMSTAR tool requires less than 15 minutes to complete an evaluation, using it requires extensive training and repetition to achieve consistent and reliable results.

Measuring quality of dental care: Caries prevention services for children.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to validate the following 3 evidence-based, process-of-care quality measures focused on dental caries prevention for children with an elevated risk of experiencing caries: sealants for 6- to 9-year-olds, sealants for 10- to 14-year-olds, and topical fluoride. METHODS: Using evidence-based guidelines, the Dental Quality Alliance developed measures for implementation with administrative data at the plan and program levels. To validate the measures, the authors used data from the Florida and Texas Medicaid programs and Children's Health Insurance Programs and from national commercial dental benefit plans. Data were extracted from 414 randomly selected dental office records to validate the use of administrative data to accurately calculate the measures. The authors also assessed statistically significant variations in overall measure performance. RESULTS: Agreement between administrative data and dental records was 95% for sealants (κ = 0.82) and 90% for topical fluoride (κ = 0.78). Sensitivity and specificity were 90.7% and 88.5% for topical fluoride and 77.8% and 98.8% for sealants, respectively. Variation in overall measure performance was greatest for topical fluoride (χ(2) = 5,887.1; P < .01); 18% to 37% of children with an elevated risk of experiencing caries received at least 2 topical fluoride applications during the reporting year. Although there was greater variation in performance for sealants for 6- to 9-year-olds (range, 21.0-31.3%; χ(2) = 548.6; P < .01) compared with sealants for 10- to 14-year-olds (range, 8.4-11.1%; χ(2) = 22.7; P < .01), overall sealant placement rates were lower for 10- to 14-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based, caries prevention process-of-care quality measures can be implemented feasibly and validly using administrative claims data. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The measures can be used to assess, monitor, and improve the proportion of children with an elevated risk of experiencing dental caries who receive evidence-based caries prevention services.

A practical approach to evidence-based dentistry: VIII: How to appraise an article based on a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Because of qualitative researchers' abilities to explore social problems and to understand the perspective of patients, qualitative research studies are useful to provide insight about patients' fears, worries, goals, and expectations related to dental care. To benefit fully from such studies, clinicians should be aware of some relevant principles of critical appraisal. In this article, the authors present one approach to critically appraise the evidence from a qualitative research study. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Critical appraisal involves assessing whether the results are credible (the selection of participants, research ethics, data collection, data analysis), what are these results, and how they can be applied in clinical practice. The authors also examined how the results could be applied to patient care in terms of offering theory, understanding the context of clinical practice, and helping clinicians understand social interactions in clinical care. By applying these principles, clinicians can consider qualitative studies when trying to achieve the best possible results for their own practices.

Randomized controlled trial: the gold standard or an unobtainable fallacy?

BACKGROUND: This article is the result of a debate at the European Journal of Orthodontics Open Session in 2013 in Reykjavik, Iceland. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to highlight some of the strengths and weakness of clinical orthodontic research, with particular emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCT). The ultimate aim of improving clinical orthodontic research in general. DESIGN: This article is organized into two sections with arguments for and against RCTs. The backgrounds to evidence-based evaluation and the level or quality of evidence in trials are discussed. The article emphasises what makes high quality clinical research, and gives practical advice including examples of tips and potential pitfalls for those undertaking clinical research. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The overriding message is constructive and it is hoped that the article serves as an aid in evaluating, designing, conducting, and reporting clinical research.