Consensus Statement on Future Directions for the Behavioral and Social Sciences in Oral Health.

The behavioral and social sciences are central to understanding and addressing oral and craniofacial health, diseases, and conditions. With both basic and applied approaches, behavioral and social sciences are relevant to every discipline in dentistry and all dental, oral, and craniofacial sciences, as well as oral health promotion programs and health care delivery. Key to understanding multilevel, interacting influences on oral health behavior and outcomes, the behavioral and social sciences focus on individuals, families, groups, cultures, systems, societies, regions, and nations. Uniquely positioned to highlight the importance of racial, cultural, and other equity in oral health, the behavioral and social sciences necessitate a focus on both individuals and groups, societal reactions to them related to power, and environmental and other contextual factors. Presented here is a consensus statement that was produced through an iterative feedback process. The statement reflects the current state of knowledge in the behavioral and social oral health sciences and identifies future directions for the field, focusing on 4 key areas: behavioral and social theories and mechanisms related to oral health, use of multiple and novel methodologies in social and behavioral research and practice related to oral health, development and testing of behavioral and social interventions to promote oral health, and dissemination and implementation research for oral health. This statement was endorsed by over 400 individuals and groups from around the world and representing numerous disciplines in oral health and the behavioral and social sciences. Having reached consensus, action is needed to advance and further integrate and translate behavioral and social sciences into oral health research, oral health promotion and health care, and the training of those working to ensure oral health for all.

Management of fear and anxiety in the dental clinic: a review.

People who are highly anxious about undergoing dental treatment comprise approximately one in seven of the population and require careful and considerate management by dental practitioners. This paper presents a review of a number of non-pharmacological (behavioural and cognitive) techniques that can be used in the dental clinic or surgery in order to assist anxious individuals obtain needed dental care. Practical advice for managing anxious patients is provided and the evidence base for the various approaches is examined and summarized. The importance of firstly identifying dental fear and then understanding its aetiology, nature and associated components is stressed. Anxiety management techniques range from good communication and establishing rapport to the use of systematic desensitization and hypnosis. Some techniques require specialist training but many others could usefully be adopted for all dental patients, regardless of their known level of dental anxiety. It is concluded that successfully managing dentally fearful individuals is achievable for clinicians but requires a greater level of understanding, good communication and a phased treatment approach. There is an acceptable evidence base for several non-pharmacological anxiety management practices to help augment dental practitioners providing care to anxious or fearful children and adults.

Computerized dental injection fear treatment: a randomized clinical trial.

One in four adults reports a clinically significant fear of dental injections, leading many to avoid dental care. While systematic desensitization is the most common therapeutic method for treating specific phobias such as fear of dental injections, lack of access to trained therapists, as well as dentists' lack of training and time in providing such a therapy, means that most fearful individuals are not able to receive the therapy needed to be able to receive necessary dental treatment. Computer Assisted Relaxation Learning (CARL) is a self-paced computerized treatment based on systematic desensitization for dental injection fear. This multicenter, block-randomized, dentist-blind, parallel-group study conducted in 8 sites in the United States compared CARL with an informational pamphlet in reducing fear of dental injections. Participants completing CARL reported significantly greater reduction in self-reported general and injection-specific dental anxiety measures compared with control individuals (p < .001). Twice as many CARL participants (35.3%) as controls (17.6%) opted to receive a dental injection after the intervention, although this was not statistically significant. CARL, therefore, led to significant changes in self-reported fear in study participants, but no significant differences in the proportion of participants having a dental injection.

Dentin hypersensitivity and oxalates: a systematic review.

Treatment of dentin hypersensitivity with oxalates is common, but oxalate efficacy remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review clinical trials reporting an oxalate treatment compared with no treatment or placebo with a dentin hypersensitivity outcome. Risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated by random-effects meta-analysis. Of 677 unique citations, 12 studies with high risk-of-bias were included. The summary SMD for 3% monohydrogen-monopotassium oxalate (n = 8 studies) was -0.71 [95% Confidence Interval: -1.48, 0.06]. Other treatments, including 30% dipotassium oxalate (n = 1), 30% dipotassium oxalate plus 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 3), 6% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 1), 6.8% ferric oxalate (n = 1), and oxalate-containing resin (n = 1), also were not statistically significantly different from placebo treatments. With the possible exception of 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate, available evidence currently does not support the recommendation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with oxalates.

What happens after referral for sedation?

OBJECTIVE: To follow up 100 referrals to the sedation clinic, examining dental anxiety and background of patients, and to assess how many patients attended for treatment planning, initial treatment and how many completed treatment, and describe the characteristics of each. For those who attended for initial treatment, to investigate which type of sedation they received and the level of clinician they saw. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional survey and review of case notes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were 100 consecutive new patients to the Department of Sedation and Special Care Dentistry at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust. The notes were analysed by an experienced member of staff (CAB) and data entered into an Excel spreadsheet and an SPSS data file created. These data were merged with a dataset containing their responses to the initial questionnaire and medical history for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients initially referred, 72 attended the treatment planning session, 66 of the 72 (92%) attended for initial dental treatment, and 33 of 66 (50%) completed treatment. Dental Fear Survey (DFS) scores were related to attendance at the initial treatment visit but not to completion of treatment. Only 33 of 100 referred patients completed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance for treatment planning and initial treatment was high. Attendance is related to fear and mental health. Overall completion of treatment from referral was 33%.

The Child Dental Control Assessment (CDCA) in youth: reliability, validity and cross-cultural differences.

AIM: The Child Dental Control Assessment (CDCA) measures children's preferred control strategies in the dental situation. Three studies are reported, assessing aspects of this instrument in youths from the USA, Japan and Australia. In particular, measurements were made as to the reliability and validity of this instrument in this age group in the three cultures, as well as comparing some results across cultures. STUDY DESIGN: These studies used a questionnaire design. METHODS: Questionnaires (including the CDCA and other measures) were given to youths aged 11-15 in the three cultures. In one culture, youths received the questionnaire twice, to compute test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The measure's reliability and validity were similar to those of other measures. The CDCA behaves similarly to the Revised Iowa Dental Control Index (R-IDCI). Youths in all three cultures showed similar responses, although the Japanese were less likely to endorse items. STATISTICS: Internal reliability of the scale ranged from 0.74 to 0.85. Test- retest reliability was 0.74. Participants in the High Desire/Low Predicted classification on the R-IDCI scored higher on the CDCA (t (73) = 2.9, p < .01). In the Japanese and Australian samples the correlation between CDCA and dental fear was 0.29-0.33 (p < .001). The Australian and USA samples scored significantly higher than the Japanese sample (overall F(2,1544) = 383.98, p < .001, followed by Tukey's HSD, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the CDCA in youth. It appears to measure the discrepancy between Desired and Predicted Control identified in the Revised Iowa Dental Control Index (R-IDCI). Responses of the youth in all three cultures were similar, indicating common dental control preferences for individuals of this age. However, consistent with cultural values, Japanese youth were less likely to endorse the control strategies. These results underline the need to develop culturally-specific, as well as situationally-specific control measures.