Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews.

Detection and diagnosis of caries-typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations-is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future "real world" context.

Quality of Split-Mouth Trials in Dentistry: 1998, 2008, and 2018.

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) published during the past 2 decades and to determine whether there has been an improvement in their quality over time. We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed to identify SMTs published in 1998, 2008, and 2018. For each included SMT, we used the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guideline, CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension, and a new 3-item checklist to assess its trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Multivariable generalized linear models were performed to analyze the quality of SMTs over time, adjusting for potential confounding factors. A total of 119 SMTs were included. The mean overall score for the TRQ (score range, 0 to 32), WRQ (0 to 15), and SMQ (0 to 3) was 15.77 (SD 4.51), 6.06 (2.06), and 1.12 (0.70), respectively. The primary outcome was clearly defined in only 28 SMTs (23.5%), and only 27 (22.7%) presented a replicable sample size calculation. Only 45 SMTs (37.8%) provided the rationale for using a split-mouth design. The correlation between body sites was reported in only 5 studies (4.2%) for sample size calculation and 4 studies (3.4%) for statistical results. Only 2 studies (1.7%) performed an appropriate sample size calculation, and 46 (38.7%) chose appropriate statistical methods, both accounting for the correlation among treatment groups and the clustering/multiplicity of measurements within an individual. Results of regression analyses suggested that the TRQ of SMTs improved significantly with time (P < 0.001), while there was no evidence of improvement in WRQ or SMQ. Both the reporting quality and methodological quality of SMTs still have much room for improvement. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the execution and reporting of SMTs.

Protocol for a Randomised controlled trial to Evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of prescribing high dose FLuoride toothpaste in preventing and treating dEntal Caries in high-risk older adulTs (reflect trial).

BACKGROUND: Dental caries in the expanding elderly, predominantly-dentate population is an emerging public health concern. Elderly individuals with heavily restored dentitions represent a clinical challenge and significant financial burden for healthcare systems, especially when their physical and cognitive abilities are in decline. Prescription of higher concentration fluoride toothpaste to prevent caries in older populations is expanding in the UK, significantly increasing costs for the National Health Services (NHS) but the effectiveness and cost benefit of this intervention are uncertain. The Reflect trial will evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of General Dental Practitioner (GDP) prescribing of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste and usual care compared to usual care alone in individuals 50 years and over with high-risk of caries. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 50 years and above attending NHS dental practices identified by their dentist as having high risk of dental caries. Participants will be randomised to prescription of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste (frequency, amount and duration decided by GDP) and usual care only. 1200 participants will be recruited from approximately 60 dental practices in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and followed up for 3 years. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants receiving any dental treatment due to caries. Secondary outcomes will include coronal and root caries increments measured by independent, blinded examiners, patient reported quality of life measures, and economic outcomes; NHS and patient perspective costs, willingness to pay, net benefit (analysed over the trial follow-up period and modelled lifetime horizon). A parallel qualitative study will investigate GDPs' practises of and beliefs about prescribing the toothpaste and patients' beliefs and experiences of the toothpaste and perceived impacts on their oral health-related behaviours. DISCUSSION: The Reflect trial will provide valuable information to patients, policy makers and clinicians on the costs and benefits of an expensive, but evidence-deficient caries prevention intervention delivered to older adults in general dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 2017-002402-13 registered 02/06/2017, first participant recruited 03/05/2018. Ethics Reference No: 17/NE/0329/233335. Funding Body: Health Technology Assessment funding stream of National Institute for Health Research. Funder number: HTA project 16/23/01. Trial Sponsor: Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL. The Trial was prospectively registered.

Cochrane and the COMET initiative: developing the evidence base in oral medicine.

All clinicians in medicine and dentistry aim to deliver evidence-based practice; however, it is widely recognised that the current evidence base for interventions in oral medicine, as with many other specialties, is of a low quality. The highest level of evidence is considered to be the systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane Oral Health group produce high quality systematic reviews, however, despite the large number of trials carried out for treatments in oral medicine, the results are often not able to be utilised to guide clinical care due to the various methodological limitations of the trials including the heterogeneity of outcome measures used. To improve the strength of the evidence base this will need to change. The Comet initiative aims to support the development of core outcome sets which are used to allow homogeneity of outcome measures in trials and therefore will allow pooling of data for meta-analysis in future systematic reviews. This paper explores the complexities involved in producing evidence for oral medicine interventions and introduces an approach for developing core outcome sets in oral medicine.

Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen numerous efforts and resources devoted to the development of open access (OA), but the current OA situation of the oncology literature remains unknown. We conducted this cross-sectional study to determine the current share and provision methods of OA in the field of oncology, identify predictors of OA status (OA versus non-OA), and study the association between OA and citation counts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched for oncology-related, peer-reviewed journal articles published in December 2014. Google, Google Scholar, PubMed, ResearchGate, OpenDOAR and OAIster were manually checked to assess the OA status of each included article. Citation data were extracted from Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the OA proportion (primary outcome) and OA provision methods. Multivariable logistic regression and multilevel generalized linear model analyses were performed to study predictors of OA status and the association between OA and citation counts, respectively. RESULTS: In a random sample of 1000 articles, 912 were deemed eligible and therefore included. Of these, the full-texts of 530 articles (58.1%; 95% CI: 54.9-61.3) were freely available online: 314 (34.4%) were available from publishers ('Gold road' to OA), 424 (46.5%) were available via self-archiving ('Green road' to OA). According to multivariable regression analyses, impact factor, publisher type, language, research type, number of authors, continent of origin, and country income were significant predictors of articles' OA status; OA articles received a citation rate 1.24 times the incidence rate for non-OA articles (95% CI: 1.05-1.47; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our sample, in the field of oncology, 42% of recent journal articles are behind the pay-wall (non-OA) 1 year after publication; the 'Green road' of providing OA is more common than the 'Gold road'; OA is associated with higher citation counts.

Cost-Effectiveness of Caries Prevention in Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

A 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial measured the cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in caries-free children aged 2 to 3 y attending general practice. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland. Participants were centrally randomized into intervention (22,600 ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, a 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized prevention advice) and control (advice only), both provided at 6-monthly intervals during a 3-y follow-up. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states assessed by calibrated and blinded examiners; secondary outcome measures included decayed, missing, or filled teeth surfaces (dmfs); pain; and extraction. Cumulative costs were related to each of the trial's outcomes in a series of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses examined the impact of using dentist's time as measured by observation rather than that reported by the dentist. The costs of applying topical fluoride were also estimated assuming the work was undertaken by dental nurses or hygienists rather than dentists. A total of 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. The mean difference in direct health care costs between groups was £107.53 (£155.74 intervention, £48.21 control, P < 0.05) per child. When all health care costs were compared, the intervention group's mean cost was £212.56 more than the control group (£987.53 intervention, £774.97 control, P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences in outcomes were only detected with respect to carious surfaces. The mean cost per carious surface avoided was estimated at £251 (95% confidence interval, £454.39-£79.52). Sensitivity analyses did not materially affect the study's findings. This trial raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of a fluoride-based intervention delivered at the practice level in the context of a state-funded dental service (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119).

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Caries Prevention in Dental Practice.

We conducted a parallel group randomized controlled trial of children initially aged 2 to 3 y who were caries free, to prevent the children becoming caries active over the subsequent 36 mo. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland, and children were randomly assigned by a clinical trials unit (CTU) (using computer-generated random numbers, with allocation concealed from the dental practice until each child was recruited) to the intervention (22,600-ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized, evidence-based prevention advice) or advice-only control at 6-monthly intervals. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (dmfs) in caries-active children, number of episodes of pain, and number of extracted teeth. Adverse reactions were recorded. Calibrated external examiners, blinded to the child's study group, assessed the status of the children at baseline and after 3 y. In total, 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 intervention, 547 control) were included in the final analyses. Eighty-seven percent of intervention and 86% of control children attended every 6-mo visit ( P = 0.77). A total of 187 (34%) in the intervention group converted to caries active compared to 213 (39%) in the control group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.04; P = 0.11). Mean dmfs of those with caries in the intervention group was 7.2 compared to 9.6 in the control group ( P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups ( P = 0.81) or in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children ( P = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had adverse reactions of a minor nature. This well-conducted trial failed to demonstrate that the intervention kept children caries free, but there was evidence that once children get caries, it slowed down its progression (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119).

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals.

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the methodology for a major study investigating the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after an initial survey, detailed in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report in 1998, had informed government recommendations on centralization. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This is a UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Children born between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 were seen in cleft centre audit clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consent was obtained for the collection of routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) and anthropometric measures (height, weight, head circumference). The methodology for each clinical measure followed those of the earlier survey as closely as possible. RESULTS: We identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Eleven separate records for each child were collected at the audit clinics. In total, 2666 (90.4%) were collected from a potential 2948 records. The response rates for the self-reported questionnaires, completed at home, were 52.6% for the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire and 52.2% for the Satisfaction with Service Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates and measures were similar to those achieved in the previous survey. There are practical, administrative and methodological challenges in repeating cross-sectional surveys 15 years apart and producing comparable data.

The efficacy of screening for common dental diseases by hygiene-therapists: a diagnostic test accuracy study.

Regularly attending adult patients are increasingly asymptomatic and not in need of treatment when attending for their routine dental examinations. As oral health improves further, using the general dental practitioner to undertake the "checkup" on regular "low-risk" patients represents a substantial and potentially unnecessary cost for state-funded systems. Given recent regulatory changes in the United Kingdom, it is now theoretically possible to delegate a range of tasks to hygiene-therapists. This has the potential to release the general dental practitioner's time and increase the capacity to care. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of hygiene-therapists when screening for dental caries and periodontal disease in regularly attending asymptomatic adults who attend for their checkup. A visual screen by hygiene-therapists acted as the index test, and the general dental practitioner acted as the reference standard. Consenting asymptomatic adult patients, who were regularly attending patients at 10 practices across the Northwest of England, entered the study. Both sets of clinicians made an assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease. The primary outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity values for dental caries and periodontal disease. In total, 1899 patients were screened. The summary point for sensitivity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.87) and 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), respectively. The summary point for specificity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.87 (0.78 to 0.92) and 0.75 (0.66 to 0.82), respectively. The results suggest that hygiene-therapists could be used to screen for dental caries and periodontal disease. This has important ramifications for service design in public-funded health systems.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, a Cochrane systematic review.

This paper compares the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth. In this systematic review only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. We calculated the proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief at 2 and 6 hours post dosing, along with the proportion of participants using rescue medication at 6 and 8 hours. Adverse events were also analysed. Data was meta-analysed where possible. Seven studies were included with a total of 2,241 participants enrolled. Ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1,000 mg paracetamol with a risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief at 6 hours of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.69). For the combined drug, the risk ratio for at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 hours is 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) data. There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol. The novel combination drug shows encouraging results when compared to the single drugs (based on two trials).

Achieving good oral health in children: the importance of a current, relevant and unbiased evidence base in paediatric dentistry.

The Cochrane Collaboration was founded in 1993 as an international, non-profit and independent organisation dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate and reliable information about healthcare readily available. This paper discusses how the Cochrane Oral Health Group reviews have contributed to the oral health evidence base used in the development of many international and U.K. dental guidance documents, particularly in the field of paediatric dentistry.

Twenty years of the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration is 20 years old this year. Established in 1993, the Collaboration has sought to provide an up-to-date, critical evidence base for all those involved in health care decision-making at a variety of levels. This article illustrates the work of the Cochrane Oral Health Group, based at the University of Manchester, UK.

A cluster-randomized controlled trial: fluoride varnish in school children.

We conducted a school-based parallel cluster randomized controlled trial with 36-month follow-up of children aged 7 to 8 years. Primary schools were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 3 applications of fluoride varnish (22,600 ppm) each year or no intervention. The primary outcome was DFS increment in the first permanent molars, with the hypothesis that 9 applications of varnish over 3 years would result in a lower increment in the test group. Follow-up measurements were recorded by examiners blind to the allocation. Ninety-five schools were randomized to the test and 95 to the reference groups; 1473 (test) and 1494 (reference) children participated in the trial. An intention-to-treat analysis was carried out with random effects models. The DFS increment was 0.65 (SD 2.15) in the test and 0.67 (SD 2.10) in the reference groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. We were unable to demonstrate an effect for fluoride varnish when it was used as a public health intervention to prevent caries in the first permanent molar teeth (Inter-national Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registration: ISRCTN: #72589426).

Cochrane reviews on the benefits/risks of fluoride toothpastes.

This concise review presents two Cochrane Reviews undertaken to determine: (1) the relative effectiveness of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations in preventing dental caries in children and adolescents; and (2) the relationship between the use of topical fluorides in young children and their risk of developing dental fluorosis. To determine the relative effectiveness of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations, we undertook a network meta-analysis utilizing both direct and indirect comparisons from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review examining fluorosis included evidence from experimental and observational studies. The findings of the reviews confirm the benefits of using fluoride toothpaste, when compared with placebo, in preventing caries in children and adolescents, but only significantly for fluoride concentrations of 1000 ppm and above. The relative caries-preventive effects of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations increase with higher fluoride concentration. However, there is weak, unreliable evidence that starting the use of fluoride toothpaste in children under 12 months of age may be associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. The decision of what fluoride levels to use for children under 6 years should be balanced between the risk of developing dental caries and that of mild fluorosis.

Using Cochrane reviews for oral diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To provide readers with information about the Cochrane Oral Health Group and how the reviews on oral diseases have contributed to guideline developments and the commissioning of trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Examples have been selected from the reviews published on The Cochrane Library. Descriptions are given of how these reviews have been used in guideline development and commissioning of trials. Readers are updated on reviews focused on the management of oral cancer and the new venture of diagnostic test reviews. RESULTS: Reviews on the management of oral diseases due to cancer treatments have been included in guidelines and changed practice in the UK. Cochrane reviews on Bell's Palsy have led to a randomised controlled trial which has changed the evidence base. The Cochrane review on recall intervals between routine appointments has input into the NICE guideline and resulted in a randomised controlled trial to look at different intervals including a risk-based interval. CONCLUSION: We hope this article will give readers information on the work of the Cochrane Oral Health Group and insight into the diversity of reviews in oral diseases. The reviews are successfully being used to change practice and as background for the funding of large-scale clinical trials.

The impact of different viewing conditions on radiological file and working length measurement.

AIM: To determine the effect of different viewing conditions and observer experience upon the accuracy of file and working length measurements using analogue intra-oral radiographs. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-five observers from a range of clinical backgrounds examined working length analogue periapical radiographs of 30 extracted teeth. Each participant measured both file (FL) and working length (WL) on each of the radiographs using three different viewing conditions consisting of a viewing box, a viewing box with film masking and a viewing box with film masking and x2 magnification. Statistical analysis was conducted to derive interobserver reliability by intraclass correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression models were fitted to compare the mean differences between the joint consensus between specialists and estimated values for file length and working length for each of the three viewing conditions. RESULTS: Multiple regressions models were fitted and found significant differences between the use of the viewing box alone and a viewing box with masking (FL P = 0.001; WL P < 0.001) and the use of the viewing box alone and with a viewing box employing masking and magnification (FL P < 0.001; WL P = 0.002). Intraclass correlation coefficient showed a high level of agreement between all observers; however, no statistically significant differences were found between the five observers groups for either mean file length or working length values. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are in agreement with National and European guidelines, which recommend the use of a viewing box, magnification and masking for radiographic interpretation.

The development of evidence-based guidelines on mouth care for children, teenagers and young adults treated for cancer.

The aim was to produce evidence-based guidelines on mouth care for children, teenagers and young adults receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Systematic reviews were undertaken and research was graded according to the methods of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Where no relevant research was identified, an opinion-gathering process was undertaken. 'Best practice' recommendations were developed with regard to appropriate dental care and basic oral hygiene. An evaluation of oral assessment tools identified seven which had been assessed for reliability and/or validity. Only Eilers' Oral Assessment Guide was felt to be relevant for daily clinical practice. A variety of interventions have been used for the management of oral mucositis, candidiasis, xerostomia and herpes simplex virus; few are supported by research evidence. Careful oral management of children treated for cancer can improve the quality of life during treatment. The guidelines have the potential to improve patient care by promoting interventions of proven benefit and discouraging use of ineffective or potentially harmful practices which may result in adverse patient outcomes.