Refocusing dental care: A risk-based preventative oral health programme for dentate older people in UK care homes.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence for managing the risk of dental caries, notably dose-dependent use of fluoride based on risk. Specific guidance is lacking on higher fluoride use in older people in care homes and prevention is often omitted from dental care plans. OBJECTIVES: To introduce a risk-based preventative approach to existing routine dental care for older people in care homes. METHODS: Three mixed residential and nursing care homes for the frail and elder (>65 years) were selected to participate. All residents were risk assessed based on dependency, dentition status and self-care abilities and consequently placed on the appropriate evidence-based intervention (2800 ppm high dose fluoride toothpaste and/or quarterly fluoride varnish placement). Full mouth ICDAS dental examinations were completed at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: At baseline, 127 risk assessments were completed in which most dentate residents (58.2%, n = 74) were assessed as Risk Level 2/3 (mod/high) whilst edentulous residents were all Risk Level 1 (low) (41.7%, n = 53). Only 13 (26.5%) of the 49 eligible residents completed the 12-month preventative programme. There was a significant difference in root caries (P < .0001), with 17 (51.5%) root lesions changing from active at baseline to arrested at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide early indication of fluoride efficacy, especially on root caries in this vulnerable group, and highlight the challenges of delivering programme's in these complex, changing environments.

Reframing perceptions in operative dentistry relating evidence-based dentistry and clinical decision making: a cross-sectional study among Jordanian dentists.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to investigate current dental practice in operative dentistry in Jordan, and the relationship between evidence-based dentistry in caries research and decision making in clinical practice in operative dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted through a survey of dentists in Jordan. The survey aimed to explore the degree of knowledge and practice of evidence-based dentistry in caries research the dentists possess regarding clinical decision making in operative dentistry. The sample size was composed of (5811) dentists whom registered in Jordan Dental Association database. Descriptive statistics were generated and Chi-square test was used to examine associations between the different variables and the significance level was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: 4000 responses were collected from the web-survey, response rate (68.83%). Nearly half of the surveyed dentists focus on the chief complaint of their patients (n = 2032, 50.8%) rather than doing full mouth assessment. Nearly two-thirds of dentists (n = 2608, 65.2%) treat lesions confined to enamel with operative treatment. Half of dentists use operative treatment when asked about the routine management of radiographically detected proximal caries confined to enamel. When treating incipient lesions, the majority (n = 3220, 80.5%) use preventive treatment. Three-quarters of dentists (n = 2992, 74.8%) treat deep dentinal caries by removing just the soft infected carious dentin, and treated old failed restorations with replacement. CONCLUSION: In operative dentistry, the evidence-based research is not implemented clinically. To optimize relationship between evidence-based dentistry and clinical decision-making, dental curriculum has to be updated and modified constantly.

Protocol for A randomised feasibility trial comparing fluoride interventions to prevent dental decay in older people in care homes (FInCH trial).

BACKGROUND: The number and proportion of older people globally is growing faster than that of any other age group. At the same time the number of people retaining some of their own teeth is rising. There significant differences between those living in care and their community dwelling peers, with evidence showing those in care having fewer teeth and significantly higher levels of dental decay. There are numerous Cochrane reviews linking the use of fluoride to a reduction in dental decay, however, the majority of research on effectiveness has been conducted on children and consequently, children and adolescents tend to be the main recipients of fluoride interventions. There are to date no studies comparing the effectiveness of fluoride interventions in older people in care homes in the UK. However, prior to developing an appropriate protocol for full-scale trial comparing clinical effectiveness of fluoride interventions, there are a number of trial feasibility and statistical parameters that need to be clarified. METHODS: This trial is a single centre, multi-site randomised controlled assessor blind parallel group (three groups) trial, with the primary objective of establishing the feasibility, practicability and compliance of fluoride interventions to prevent dental decay in care homes. Secondary and tertiary objectives will aim to explore the acceptability of the interventions from resident, care home and dental services perspectives, and estimate the efficacy of the three different fluoride treatments. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial will produce new knowledge and add value to a landscape that is under researched. Although the efficacy of fluoride interventions is proven, the feasibility of dental research and prevention in this vulnerable group and in the complex care home setting is novel. This work will not only add to our understanding of the interface of dental care and social care but will also contribute to our broader understanding on undertaking research in care home settings. Dental care for older people has been a longstanding issue, and the events of this past year has shone a light on the vulnerabilities of those residing in care homes and so this research is landing at a pivotal time. Trial registration EudraCT Registration 2017-002248-34. Registered 20th February 2018 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2017-002248-34 .

CariesCare International adapted for the pandemic in children: Caries OUT multicentre single-group interventional study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this "Caries OUT" study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. METHODS: In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children's oral-health behaviour change, parents' and dentists' process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3-5 and 6-8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments' time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5-5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child's CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents' and dentists' process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. DISCUSSION: The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h . Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021.

Terminology of Dental Caries and Dental Caries Management: Consensus Report of a Workshop Organized by ORCA and Cariology Research Group of IADR.

A 2-day workshop of ORCA and the IADR Cariology Research Group was organized to discuss and reach consensus on definitions of the most commonly used terms in cariology. The aims were to identify and to select the most commonly used terms of dental caries and dental caries management and to define them based on current concepts. Terms related to definition, diagnosis, risk assessment, and monitoring of dental caries were included. The Delphi process was used to establish terms to be considered using the nominal group method favored by consensus. Of 222 terms originally suggested by six cariologists from different countries, a total of 59 terms were reviewed after removing duplicates and unnecessary words. Sixteen experts in cariology took part in the process of reaching consensus about the definitions of the selected caries terms. Decisions were made following thorough "round table" discussions of each term and confirmed by secret electronic voting. Full agreement (100%) was reached on 17 terms, while the definitions of 6 terms were below the agreed 80% threshold of consensus. The suggested terminology is recommended for use in research, in public health, as well as in clinical practice.

Early childhood caries epidemiology, aetiology, risk assessment, societal burden, management, education, and policy: Global perspective.

BACKGROUND: This paper is a summary of the proceedings of the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry Bangkok Conference on early childhood caries (ECC) held in 3-4 November 2018. AIM: The paper aims to convey a global perspective of ECC definitions, aetiology, risk factors, societal costs, management, educational curriculum, and policy. DESIGN: This global perspective on ECC is the compilation of the state of science, current concepts, and literature regarding ECC from worldwide experts on ECC. RESULTS: Early childhood caries is related to frequent sugar consumption in an environment of enamel adherent, acid-producing bacteria in a complex biofilm, as well as developmental defects of enamel. The seriousness, societal costs, and impact on quality of life of dental caries in pre-school children are enormous. Worldwide data show that ECC continues to be highly prevalent, yet infrequently treated. Approaches to reduce the prevalence include interventions that start in the first year of a child's life, evidence-based and risk-based management, and reimbursement systems that foster preventive care. CONCLUSIONS: This global perspective on ECC epidemiology, aetiology, risk assessment, global impact, and management is aimed to foster improved worldwide understanding and management of ECC.

INTERVAL (investigation of NICE technologies for enabling risk-variable-adjusted-length) dental recalls trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the best dental recall interval for optimum, cost-effective maintenance of oral health in dentate adults attending dental primary care.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group's systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. METHODS: This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95933794 (Date assigned 20/08/2008).

IQuaD dental trial; improving the quality of dentistry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing oral hygiene advice and periodontal instrumentation for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0-3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI.Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases.The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. DISCUSSION: IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715.

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.

Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires? two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional response rates to postal questionnaires are declining and this may threaten the validity and generalisability of their findings. Methods to improve response rates do incur costs (resources) and increase the cost of research projects. The aim of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess whether 1) incentives, 2) type of reminder and/or 3) reduced response burden improve response rates; and to assess the cost implications of such additional effective interventions. METHODS: Two RCTs were conducted. In RCT A general dental practitioners (dentists) in Scotland were randomised to receive either an incentive; an abridged questionnaire or a full length questionnaire. In RCT B non-responders to a postal questionnaire sent to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the UK were firstly randomised to receive a second full length questionnaire as a reminder or a postcard reminder. Continued non-responders from RCT B were then randomised within their first randomisation to receive a third full length or an abridged questionnaire reminder. The cost-effectiveness of interventions that effectively increased response rates was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There was no evidence that an incentive (52% versus 43%, Risk Difference (RD) -8.8 (95%CI -22.5, 4.8); or abridged questionnaire (46% versus 43%, RD -2.9 (95%CI -16.5, 10.7); statistically significantly improved dentist response rates compared to a full length questionnaire in RCT A. In RCT B there was no evidence that a full questionnaire reminder statistically significantly improved response rates compared to a postcard reminder (10.4% versus 7.3%, RD 3 (95%CI -0.1, 6.8). At a second reminder stage, GPs sent the abridged questionnaire responded more often (14.8% versus 7.2%, RD -7.7 (95%CI -12.8, -2.6). GPs who received a postcard reminder followed by an abridged questionnaire were most likely to respond (19.8% versus 6.3%, RD 8.1%, and 9.1% for full/postcard/full, three full or full/full/abridged questionnaire respectively). An abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy for increasing the response rate (£15.99 per response). CONCLUSIONS: When expecting or facing a low response rate to postal questionnaires, researchers should carefully identify the most efficient way to boost their response rate. In these studies, an abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy. An increase in response rates may be explained by a combination of the number and type of contacts. Increasing the sampling frame may be more cost-effective than interventions to prompt non-responders. However, this may not strengthen the validity and generalisability of the survey findings and affect the representativeness of the sample.

The feasibility of data collection in dental practices, using codes for the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), to allow European general dental practitioners to monitor dental caries at local, national, and international levels.

AIM: To determine whether or not European general dental practitioners can carry out comprehensive dental caries assessments of the teeth of selected quotas of their patients during routine dental check-ups, as an alternative or complement to the work of specialised, salaried, dental epidemiologists. METHODS: Dentists from several European countries were invited by local coordinators to be trained to carry out dental disease assessments. For caries, they used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), as part of a wider oral health indicators project with a European perspective. They attended training events and recruited and examined patients in their own practices before completing questionnaires, which they returned to a central data-processing facility. RESULTS: Ninety-six dentists returned questionnaires giving their opinions of the data-collection system after performing ICDAS assessments on 1216 patients. Mean times for assessments varied between countries from 7.8 to 14.06 minutes and were dependent on the age of the patient and the number and general condition of the teeth present. Given a choice of six difficulty/ease options for both understanding and applying the system, 89% of the dental examiners chose one of the two categories indicating the least difficulty for understanding and 73% chose one of these two categories for applying. CONCLUSION: Volunteer general dental practitioners (GDPs) from six European countries were able successfully to perform data collection for survey work in addition to their routine practice. If larger numbers of GDPs across Europe are prepared to undertake this type of work for selected quota samples, it should be possible to collect data to monitor caries levels among patients who attend dental practices at local, national, and international levels, provided that the time taken is considered and remunerated appropriately.

Caries and collaborations in context.

Dental caries is the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and affects all age groups across the life course. Caries (and the dental cavities it produces) create very significant personal, societal and economic burdens across the world, despite dental cavities being largely preventable. This is why so many individuals and groups are collaborating to do something to improve the world landscape of avoidable cavities. Over the past 20 years, a series of international partnerships have been developed in caries research, education and management, which have paved the way for a shift towards collaborative, inter-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches to caries. This paper: 1) discusses the motivation for individuals and organisations to collaborate towards 'service to society'/'making a difference'/'making the world a better place'; 2) explains that collaboration to make an impact is undeniably complicated, but highly desirable; 3) suggests that successful collaborations typically need to be sustainable and long-term; 4) provides some examples from the caries world of the range and depth of collaborations making a difference; and 5) suggests that we now seem to be at multiple 'tipping points' to accelerate the progress of integration, intersectoral and interprofessional collaboration and of aligning caries control with the broader context of oral health and general health globally.

New UK Chapter of the Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future.

The Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future (ACFF), started in 2010, has been based at King's College London since 2013. It is a dental caries-focused charity promoting integrated clinical and public health action. ACFF Chapters seek to improve caries prevention and management locally, based on best global evidence. The UK Chapter has been created in response to a continuing need combined with opportunities including the implementation of the latest UK version of the Delivering better oral health guidance on prevention (version 4). The Chapter has been formed through a coordinating committee with UKwide representation combining expertise in dental caries management across the patient life course. This committee co-created the Chapter Values Statement: 'in pursuit of a cavity-free future across the UK we value: collaboration and innovation; realistic and implementable prevention-based solutions; approaches that reduce health inequalities; action across both oral and general health settings; and working comprehensively from the population through to the individual level.' The agreed Chapter focus is on advocating for the implementation of appropriate, effective, pragmatic caries prevention and care across three themes: 1) in everyday dental practice; 2) in health and social care curricula; and 3) for vulnerable people across their life course on the basis of increased caries risk/susceptibility.

Dental Policy Lab 2 - towards paying for health in dentistry.

The first Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future (ACFF)/King's College London Dental Policy Lab, held in 2017, identified the need for a review of dental payment systems in order to see progress towards achieving improvements in caries and cavities. The lack of incentivisation for preventive intervention and care has long been a barrier to progress. The second Dental Policy Lab, held in July 2018, focused on this issue with the overarching question: 'How can we create and implement acceptable prevention-based dental payment systems to achieve and maintain health outcomes?' Using a design approach and participatory research, 29 participants from five stakeholder categories developed a blueprint report that aims to serve as a framework to adapt or create remuneration systems that are compatible with evidence-based dentistry with a focus on preventive care. Aimed at policymakers and policy entrepreneurs, this blueprint provides guidance and potential solutions using several international examples. The report and accompanying infographic explored in this paper have been well received and have helped to frame discussions in several country settings, with a direct implementation which is being trialled in France in 2021.

Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease.

The recent developments in the science underpinning our knowledge of both the initiation of dental caries and the subsequent behaviour of lesions over time gives us a solid base to understand caries differently. Advances in understanding the human and oral microbiome have come in parallel with the recognition of the importance of balancing protective and pathological risk factors. Caries prevention and management is now about controlling risk factors to maintain a balanced intraoral biofilm ecology that guards against a continuing low pH driven by the frequent consumption of sugars. Thus, caries control is no longer about attempts at eradicating any specific microorganism. Further, the present knowledge leads to the classification of dental caries as a non-communicable disease (NCD), which is vitally important from a policy perspective (both globally and at the country level). Caries shares similar risk factors with other chronic/systemic diseases, which provides opportunities for developing common prevention strategies and promoting health equity through action on the social determinants of health. So, preventing and controlling caries should be integrated across the so-called upstream, midstream and downstream levels and these activities can also help to control other NCDs.

Dental Policy Lab 1 - towards a cavity-free future.

Although many dental professionals argue that prevention of oral diseases, including dental caries, will benefit both the patient and public finances, a paradigm shift has yet to happen in most countries. The literature has demonstrated that caries prevention and control is possible, but authorities have yet to implement health systems that allow patients to stay in a good health state. 'Policy Labs' are an innovative policy-making initiative that allow a positive collaboration between the many stakeholders around a given policy issue. In July 2017, 24 international experts, including representatives of both international and European Chief Dental Officers associations, were gathered for the first Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future/King's College London Dental Policy Lab to identify the main barriers for a change, and concrete actions to facilitate a policy shift towards increased resource allocation in prevention. A comprehensive report and well-received infographic summarising the key recommendations (explored in this paper) were produced to explain the situation and highlight the value of a cavity-free world to policymakers, demonstrating where change is needed. The first Dental Policy Lab proved to be an efficient way to generate new ideas and concrete ways to implement them, and has led to several subsequent initiatives worldwide.

The Calcivis story - enamel caries activity assessment from technology to practice.

The Calcivis story is one of innovation and collaboration to deliver new technology capable of helping dentists improve patient care through solving an unmet clinical need in assessing the activity of caries lesions in enamel. Presently, there is no system routinely used in dental practice that can, in a single visit, determine whether a non-cavitated caries lesion is active or not. Calcivis has evolved since 2005, when a potential link between basic science in luminescence and differentiating initial-stage caries lesions that are actively demineralising and likely to progress, from other lesions which are inactive and currently do not need interventive care, was recognised. The 16-year journey has involved clinical academic dentists, scientists and entrepreneurs, general practitioners and their patients, together with serial investors and a core team working to patent, refine, assess and develop products to submit to regulatory approval and take to the international dental market. This journey has been made possible through effective long-term collaborations between disparate groups all sharing a common vision for the possibilities of harnessing new technology to help dental professionals provide better care for their patients.

Dental Policy Lab 3: towards oral and dental health through partnership.

The third and last of the successful Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future (ACFF)/King's College London Dental Policy Lab series, held in 2019, focused on outlining how dental and oral health industries could benefit from enabling positive behaviour change in patients and the public, allowing progress towards caries reduction. During a two-day event, experts from across public health, dentists, global multi-national corporations and dental industry start-ups discussed the issue, collaboratively developing ideas around policy, technology, messaging and engagement for change. An analysis of the current trends in oral health laid out how the implications for industry and corporate social responsibility were identified as crucial. The report and accompanying infographic explored in this paper have been well received and acted as a catalyst for future developments in the area.

From 'ICDAS' to 'CariesCare International': the 20-year journey building international consensus to take caries evidence into clinical practice.

This paper charts the 20-year collaborative journey made by international teams of dental researchers, educators and practitioners. Following the initial development of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) in 2002, the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) was collaboratively developed between 2010-2017 with several dental research and practice organisations, and influenced by best evidence judged via SIGN methodology, the UNEP Minamata Treaty (and linked phasing down of dental amalgam), three Dental Policy Labs and an international movement in operative dentistry to move towards minimally invasive dentistry. The FDI World Dental Federation publicised and advocated the ICCMS in 2019, when the 'CariesCare International' Consensus Guide and 4D caries management system was published to aid the delivery of ICCMS into practice. This system, which is designed to help practitioners deliver optimal caries care for patients, is now being adapted internationally for post-pandemic use in the 'Caries OUT' study. It is also being used as a vehicle for implementing the updated Delivering better oral health guidance on caries, as part of the minimum intervention oral healthcare delivery framework in the UK.