Topical fluoride for caries prevention: executive summary of the updated clinical recommendations and supporting systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs presents evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding professionally applied and prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents for caries prevention. These recommendations are an update of the 2006 ADA recommendations regarding professionally applied topical fluoride and were developed by using a new process that includes conducting a systematic review of primary studies. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials of professionally applied and prescription-strength topical fluoride agents--including mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, foams and pastes--with caries increment outcomes published in English through October 2012. RESULTS: The panel included 71 trials from 82 articles in its review and assessed the efficacy of various topical fluoride caries-preventive agents. The panel makes recommendations for further research. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The panel recommends the following for people at risk of developing dental caries: 2.26 percent fluoride varnish or 1.23 percent fluoride (acidulated phosphate fluoride) gel, or a prescription-strength, home-use 0.05 percent fluoride gel or paste or 0.09 percent fluoride mouthrinse for patients 6 years or older. Only 2.26 percent fluoride varnish is recommended for children younger than 6 years. The strengths of the recommendations for the recommended products varied from "in favor" to "expert opinion for." As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences.

Evidence-based clinical recommendations on the prescription of dietary fluoride supplements for caries prevention: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for the prescription of dietary fluoride supplements. The recommendations were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs (CSA). The panel addressed the following questions: when and for whom should fluoride supplements be prescribed, and what should be the recommended dosage schedule for dietary fluoride supplements? TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: A panel of experts convened by the ADA CSA, in collaboration with staff of the ADA Center for Evidence-based Dentistry, conducted a MEDLINE search to identify publications that addressed the research questions: systematic reviews as well as clinical studies published since the systematic reviews were conducted (June 1, 2006). RESULTS: The panel concluded that dietary fluoride supplements should be prescribed only for children who are at high risk of developing caries and whose primary source of drinking water is deficient in fluoride. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are a resource for practitioners to consider in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences. Providers should carefully monitor the patient's adherence to the fluoride dosing schedule to maximize the potential therapeutic benefit.

Preventing dental caries through school-based sealant programs: updated recommendations and reviews of evidence.

BACKGROUND: School-based sealant programs (SBSPs) increase sealant use and reduce caries. Programs target schools that serve children from low-income families and focus on sealing newly erupted permanent molars. In 2004 and 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, sponsored meetings of an expert work group to update recommendations for sealant use in SBSPs on the basis of available evidence regarding the effectiveness of sealants on sound and carious pit and fissure surfaces, caries assessment and selected sealant placement techniques, and the risk of caries' developing in sealed teeth among children who might be lost to follow-up. The work group also identified topics for which additional evidence review was needed. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The work group used systematic reviews when available. Since 2005, staff members at CDC and subject-matter experts conducted several independent analyses of topics for which no reviews existed. These reviews include a systematic review of the effectiveness of sealants in managing caries. RESULTS: The evidence supports recommendations to seal sound surfaces and noncavitated lesions, to use visual assessment to detect surface cavitation, to use a toothbrush or handpiece prophylaxis to clean tooth surfaces, and to provide sealants to children even if follow-up cannot be ensured. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are consistent with the current state of the science and provide appropriate guidance for sealant use in SBSPs. This report also may increase practitioners' awareness of the SBSP as an important and effective public health approach that complements clinical care.

Oral health needs among adults in the United States with chronic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Oral and dental diseases may be associated with other chronic diseases. METHODS: Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004, the authors calculated the prevalence of untreated dental diseases, self-reported poor oral health and the number of missing teeth for adults in the United States who had certain chronic diseases. The authors used multivariate analysis to determine whether these diseases were associated with indicators of dental disease after controlling for common risk factors. RESULTS: Participants with rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes or a liver condition were twice as likely to have an urgent need for dental treatment as were participants who did not have these diseases. After controlling for common risk factors, the authors found that arthritis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, emphysema, hepatitis C virus, obesity and stroke still were associated with dental disease. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found a high burden of unmet dental care needs among participants with chronic diseases. This association held in the multivariate analysis, suggesting that some chronic diseases may increase the risk of developing dental disease, decrease utilization of dental care or both. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dental and medical care providers should work together to ensure that adults with chronic diseases receive regular dental care.

Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for use of pit-and-fissure sealants developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs. The panel addressed the following clinical questions. Under what circumstances should sealants be placed to prevent caries? Does placing sealants over early (noncavitated) lesions prevent progression of the lesion? Are there conditions that favor the placement of resin-based versus glass ionomer cement sealants in terms of retention or caries prevention? Are there any techniques that could improve sealants' retention and effectiveness in caries prevention? Staff of the ADA Division of Science conducted a MEDLINE search to identify systematic reviews and clinical studies published after the identified systematic reviews.

Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs.

BACKGROUND: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for use of pit-and-fissure sealants developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The panel addressed the following clinical questions: Under what circumstances should sealants be placed to prevent caries? Does placing sealants over early (noncavitated) lesions prevent progression of the lesion? Are there conditions that favor the placement of resin-based versus. glass ionomer cement sealants in terms of retention or caries prevention? Are there any techniques that could improve sealants' retention and effectiveness in caries prevention? TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Staff of the ADA Division of Science conducted a MEDLINE search to identify systematic reviews and clinical studies published after the identified systematic reviews. At the panel's request, the ADA Division of Science staff conducted additional searches for clinical studies related to specific topics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provided unpublished systematic reviews that since have been accepted for publication. RESULTS: The expert panel developed clinical recommendations for each clinical question. The panel concluded that sealants are effective in caries prevention and that sealants can prevent the progression of early noncavitated carious lesions. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are presented as a resource to be considered in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences. The evidence indicates that sealants can be used effectively to prevent the initiation and progression of dental caries.

The effect of dental sealants on bacteria levels in caries lesions: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Concern about inadvertently sealing over caries often prevents dentists from providing dental sealants. The objective of the authors' review was to examine the effects of sealants on bacteria levels within caries lesions under dental sealants. METHODS: The authors searched electronic databases for comparative studies examining bacteria levels in sealed permanent teeth. To measure the effect of sealants on bacteria levels, they used the log(10) reduction in mean total viable bacteria counts (VBC) between sealed and not-sealed caries and the percentage reduction in the proportion of samples with viable bacteria. RESULTS: Six studies--three randomized controlled trials, two controlled trials and one before-and-after study-were included in the analysis. Although studies varied considerably, there were no findings of significant increases in bacteria under sealants. Sealing caries was associated with a 100-fold reduction in mean total VBC (four studies, 138 samples). Sealants reduced the probability of viable bacteria by about 50.0 percent (four studies, 117 samples). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that sealants reduced bacteria in carious lesions, but that in some studies, low levels of bacteria persisted. These findings do not support reported concerns about poorer outcomes associated with inadvertently sealing caries. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners should not be reluctant to provide sealants-an intervention proven to be highly effective in preventing caries-because of concerns about inadvertently sealing over caries.

Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B virus associated with oral surgery.

We used molecular epidemiologic techniques to document patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) between 2 outpatient oral surgery patients operated on 161 min apart. Serological testing of 25 (93%) of 27 patients operated on after the source patient revealed that 19 (76%) of 25 were previously immune to HBV; no additional cases were identified. We found no deficiencies in infection control practices. Transmission may have been limited by the high prevalence (64%) of patients vaccinated against HBV. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of patient-to-patient transmission of a bloodborne pathogen in a dental setting in the United States.

Guidelines for infection control in dental health care settings--2003.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, is the lead federal agency for disease prevention in the United States. It has been 10 years since CDC infection control guidelines for dental health care settings were last published. During those 10 years, new technologies and issues have emerged, and other CDC infection control guidelines for health care settings have been updated. RESULTS: In light of these developments, CDC collaborated with experts in infection control to revise its infection control recommendations for dental health care settings. Existing guidelines and published research pertinent to dental infection control principles and practices were reviewed. This article provides background information, describes the process used to create these guidelines, and lists the new recommendations. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: CDC believes that dental offices that follow these new recommendations will strengthen an already admirable record of safe dental practice. Patients and providers alike can be assured that oral health care can be delivered and received in a safe manner.

Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings--2003.

This report consolidates previous recommendations and adds new ones for infection control in dental settings. Recommendations are provided regarding 1) educating and protecting dental health-care personnel; 2) preventing transmission of bloodborne pathogens; 3) hand hygiene; 4) personal protective equipment; 5) contact dermatitis and latex hypersensitivity; 6) sterilization and disinfection of patient-care items; 7) environmental infection control; 8) dental unit waterlines, biofilm, and water quality; and 9) special considerations (e.g., dental handpieces and other devices, radiology, parenteral medications, oral surgical procedures, and dental laboratories). These recommendations were developed in collaboration with and after review by authorities on infection control from CDC and other public agencies, academia, and private and professional organizations.

Angular stomatitis and riboflavin status among adolescent Bhutanese refugees living in southeastern Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Between 1990 and 1993, fear of ethnic persecution led 83,000 ethnic Nepalese to flee from Bhutan to refugee camps in Nepal, where they remained at the time of this study. Reported cases of angular stomatitis (AS), ie, thinning or fissuring at the mouth angles, increased 6-fold from December 1998 to March 1999, from 5.5 to 35.6 cases per 1000 per month. This increase came after the removal of a fortified cereal from rations. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were to assess the prevalence of AS and of low concentrations of riboflavin, folate, vitamin B-12, and iron by using biochemical measures; to determine whether riboflavin status was associated with AS; and to assess the potential of AS as a screening measure for low riboflavin concentrations. DESIGN: In October 1999, we performed a survey among a random sample of 463 adolescent refugees in which we conducted interviews and physical examinations and obtained blood specimens for riboflavin assessment. Riboflavin status was assessed with the erythrocyte glutathione reductase (EC 1.6.4.2) activity coefficient. After we excluded those adolescents who had taken vitamins during the past month, 369 were eligible for analyses. RESULTS: AS was common (26.8%; 95% CI: 22.3, 31.3), the prevalence of low riboflavin concentrations was high (85.8%; 80.7, 90.9), and riboflavin status was associated with AS. Adolescents with AS had significantly lower riboflavin concentrations than did adolescents without AS (P = 0.02). The adjusted odds ratio for AS and low riboflavin concentrations was 5.1 (1.55, 16.5). CONCLUSION: Globally, riboflavin deficiency is rare. Its emergence in food-dependent populations can be a harbinger of other B-vitamin deficiencies.