Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the evolution of the cancer burden in Europe is of great value. Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe have been published for 2004 and estimates are now being presented for cancer incidence and mortality in Europe for 2006. METHODS: The most recent sources of cancer incidence and mortality data have been collected and projections have been carried out using short-term prediction methods to produce estimated rates for 2006. Additional estimation was required where national incidence data were not available, and the method involved the projection of the aggregations of cancer incidence and mortality data from representative cancer registries. The estimated 2006 rates were applied to the corresponding estimated country population to obtain the best estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. RESULTS: In 2006 in Europe, there were an estimated 3,191,600 cancer cases diagnosed (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers) and 1,703,000 deaths from cancer. The most common form of cancers was breast cancer (429,900 cases, 13.5% of all cancer cases), followed by colorectal cancers (412,900, 12.9%) and lung cancer (386,300, 12.1%). Lung cancer, with an estimated 334,800 deaths (19.7% of total), was the most common cause of death from cancer, followed by colorectal (207,400 deaths), breast (131,900) and stomach (118,200) cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The total number of new cases of cancer in Europe appears to have increased by 300,000 since 2004. With an estimated 3.2 million new cases (53% occurring in men, 47% in women) and 1.7 million deaths (56% in men, 44% in women) each year, cancer remains an important public health problem in Europe and the ageing of the European population will cause these numbers to continue to increase even if age-specific rates remain constant. Evidence-based public health measures exist to reduce the mortality of breast and colorectal cancer while the incidence of lung cancer, and several other forms of cancer, could be diminished by improved tobacco control.

Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health.

BACKGROUND: Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17/06/2004) and Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 2 June 2004); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 2 2004) and CINAHL (January 1982 to week 2 June 2004). Manufacturers were contacted for additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected for the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants - general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention - unsupervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six authors independently extracted information. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for quality and publication bias. For discussion purposes SMD was translated into percentage change. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-two trials, involving 3855 participants, provided data. Brushes with a rotation oscillation action removed plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short term and reduced gingivitis scores in studies over 3 months. For plaque at 1 to 3 months the SMD was -0.43 (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.14), for gingivitis SMD -0.62 (95% CI: -0.90 to -0.34) representing an 11% difference on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Loe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the SMD for plaque was -1.29 (95% CI: -2.67 to 0.08) and for gingivitis was -0.51 (-0.76 to -0.25) representing a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay bleeding on probing index. There was heterogeneity between the trials for the short-term follow up. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered designs were as consistently superior to manual toothbrushes.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and temporary. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

The effectiveness of manual versus powered toothbrushes for dental health: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, principally in relation to plaque removal and gingival health. Stain, calculus removal, dependability, adverse effects and cost were also considered. METHOD: A systematic review was undertaken in collaboration with the Cochrane Oral Health Group. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing powered and manual toothbrushes. Trials of less than 28 days duration, or where toothbrushing was supervised, were excluded. Assessment of relevance, data extraction and validity assessment were all undertaken independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Included studies were grouped according to the mode of action of the powered toothbrush. The primary outcomes were plaque and gingival health with data defined as either short-term (1-3 months) or long-term (greater than 3 months) duration were analysed. Powered brushes were categorised into six groups depending on mode of action. Numerical data extracted were checked by a third reviewer for accuracy and entered into RevMan (version 4.1). RESULTS: The initial search identified 354 studies. Two hundred and fifteen full articles were obtained of which 29 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria with results, which could be entered in the meta-analysis. Twenty-six trials (1786 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term plaque scores. Twenty-nine trials (2236 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term gingivitis scores. Powered brushes reduced plaque and gingivitis at least as effectively as manual brushing. Rotation oscillation powered brushes statistically significantly reduced plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. For plaque at one to 3 months the standardised mean difference was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.45 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02, -0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: In general there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between powered and manual brushes. However, rotation oscillation powered brushes significantly reduce plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. The clinical significance of this reduction is not known. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health.

BACKGROUND: Specific oral bacteria, generically known as "dental plaque" are the primary cause of gingivitis (gum disease) and caries. The removal of dental plaque is thought to play a key role in the maintenance of oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22/8/02); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 5 2002); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 3 July 2002) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2002). Manufacturers of powered toothbrushes were contacted for additional published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants-general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention- supervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least four weeks; primary outcomes-the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six reviewers independently extracted information in duplicate. Indices for plaque and gingivitis were expressed as standardised values for each study. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with the appropriate 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for the items assessed for quality and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials, involving 2,547 participants, provided data for the meta-analysis. Brushes that worked with a rotation oscillation action removed more plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short and long term. For plaque at one to three months the SMD was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.44 (95% CI: -0.72, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over three months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02,-0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. The heterogeneity found in these meta-analyses for short term trials was caused by one trial that had exceptionally low standard deviations. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Those side effects that were reported on in the trials were localised and temporary. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action achieve a modest reduction in plaque and gingivitis compared to manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.