European Organisation for Caries Research and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry Consensus Report on Clinical Recommendations for Caries Diagnosis: Paper III - Caries Diagnosis at the Individual Level.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present consensus paper was to provide recommendations for clinical practice on the individual etiological and modifying factors to be assessed in the individual diagnosis of caries, and the methods for their assessment, supporting personalized treatment decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The executive councils of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) nominated ten experts each to join the expert panel. The steering committee formed three work groups which were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity assessment, and (3) forming individualized caries diagnoses. The experts responsible for "individualised caries diagnosis" searched and evaluated the relevant literature, drafted this manuscript and made provisional consensus recommendations. These recommendations were discussed and refined during the structured process in the whole work group. Finally, the agreement for each recommendation was determined using an anonymous eDelphi survey. The threshold for approval of recommendations was determined at 70% agreement. RESULTS: Ten recommendations were approved and agreed by the whole expert panel, covering medical history, caries experience, plaque, diet, fluoride, and saliva. While the level of evidence was low, the level of agreement was typically very high, except for one recommendation on salivary flow measurement, where 70% agreed. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that all aspects of caries lesion progression and activity, recent caries experience, medical conditions and medications, plaque, diet, fluoride and saliva should be synthesized to arrive at an individual diagnosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The expert panel merged evidence from existing guidelines and scientific literature with practical considerations and provided recommendations for their use in daily dental practice.

ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendations for caries diagnosis. Paper II: caries lesion activity and progression assessment.

INTRODUCTION: This consensus paper provides recommendations for oral health professionals on why and how to assess caries activity and progression with special respect to the site of a lesion. METHODS: An expert panel was nominated by the executive councils of the European Organization for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD). The steering committee built three working groups that were asked to provide recommendations on 1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, 2) caries activity and progression assessment and 3) obtain individualized caries diagnoses. The experts of work group 2 phrased and agreed on provisional general and specific recommendations on caries lesion activity and progression, based on a review of the current literature. These recommendations were then discussed and refined in a consensus workshop followed by an anonymous Delphi survey to determine the agreement on each recommendation. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed on general (n=7) and specific recommendations (n=6). The specific recommendations cover coronal caries on pits and fissures, smooth surfaces, proximal surfaces, as well as root caries and secondary caries/ caries adjacent to restorations and sealants (CARS). 3/13 recommendations yielded perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: The most suitable method for lesion activity assessment is the visual-tactile method. No single clinical characteristic is indicative of lesion activity; instead, lesion activity assessment is based on assessing and weighing several clinical signs. The recall intervals for visual and radiographic examination need to be adjusted to the presence of active caries lesions and recent caries progression rates. Modifications should be based on individual patient characteristics.

ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendation for caries diagnosis. Paper I: caries lesion detection and depth assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present consensus paper was to provide recommendations for clinical practice considering the use of visual examination, dental radiography and adjunct methods for primary caries detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The executive councils of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) nominated ten experts each to join the expert panel. The steering committee formed three work groups that were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity assessment and (3) forming individualised caries diagnoses. The experts responsible for "caries detection and diagnostic methods" searched and evaluated the relevant literature, drafted this manuscript and made provisional consensus recommendations. These recommendations were discussed and refined during the structured process in the whole work group. Finally, the agreement for each recommendation was determined using an anonymous Delphi survey. RESULTS: Recommendations (N = 8) were approved and agreed upon by the whole expert panel: visual examination (N = 3), dental radiography (N = 3) and additional diagnostic methods (N = 2). While the quality of evidence was found to be heterogeneous, all recommendations were agreed upon by the expert panel. CONCLUSION: Visual examination is recommended as the first-choice method for the detection and assessment of caries lesions on accessible surfaces. Intraoral radiography, preferably bitewing, is recommended as an additional method. Adjunct, non-ionising radiation methods might also be useful in certain clinical situations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The expert panel merged evidence from the scientific literature with practical considerations and provided recommendations for their use in daily dental practice.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Dental Professionals' Infection Risk Perception: An International Survey.

A global survey among dentists was used to identify the various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on this professional group. Special attention was given to perception and assessment of infection risk. From May to August 2020, the questionnaire was delivered in 36 countries by respective research groups and was completed by 52,491 dental professionals. The survey was designed as a cross-sectional survey based on a previously standardized questionnaire. This study focuses on the part of the questionnaire that deals with the perception of the infection risk of COVID-19 by dentists and their patients. A logistic regression model was used, which consisted of four Likert items as response options and the additional self-reported routine or emergency treatment as the dependent variable. Analysis by continent found that European and Asian dentists were particularly likely to be infected at work (OR = 1.45 95%CI = 1.02/1.84 and OR = 2.68, 95%CI = 1.45/3.22, respectively), while it was likely that Australian dentists did not feel particularly at risk due to low infection rates. Three quarters of Americans treated only emergencies during this survey period, while Europeans (64.71%) and Asians (66.67%) provided mostly routine care. This could affect the Europeans' confidence that they would not be able to protect themselves from infections in the long-term. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on dental professionals' infection risk perception is determined by the geographical origin of dentists. This study shows that, especially in high-incidence countries, infection risk perception was higher when dentists tried to provide routine dental procedures to their patients. Dental professionals can offer themselves and their patients good protection by maintaining high standards of hygiene. However, their concerns should be taken seriously and the dental professionals' group that is of great importance for oral health care and prevention, should not be neglected in the future, even in the event of emerging pandemics.

The oral health of adults attending dental practices in England in 2018: a report of a novel method and findings.

Introduction National surveys of the oral health of adults are conducted decennially. For reasons of feasibility and cost, these only provide accurate information at large geographical areas. To address this, a survey of adults attending dental practices in England was undertaken.Aim To describe and discuss the survey method and findings.Method A clinical examination and questionnaire survey was conducted in a sample of English dental practices.Results Questionnaires (n = 16,572) and clinical examinations (n = 14,270) were completed with patients from 1,173 dental practices. Poorer oral health disproportionately affected older adults and those from more socioeconomically deprived areas. Over one in three from more deprived areas had untreated caries compared with one in five in the less deprived (36.2% vs 19.9%) and impacts of oral problems were nearly three times higher in the more deprived areas (27.9% vs 11.0%). Of those receiving NHS care, 28.7% and 46.2% reported they would struggle/be unable to pay a Band 2 and Band 3 NHS patient charge, respectively.Conclusion It is feasible to undertake a survey of adults in dental practices but care must be taken generalising the findings to the general population and comparing them with other surveys undertaken using different methods.

Barriers to prevention in oral health care for english NHS dental patients: a qualitative study of views from key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant progress in the control of oral diseases since the discovery of fluoride in the 1940s, dental caries and periodontal diseases continue to affect a significant proportion of the population, particularly socially disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic groups. The National Health Service in England provides preventive advice and treatments as part of an oral health assessment, and evidence-based guidance recommends the use of fissure sealants and topical fluorides in addition to dietary and oral hygiene advice. Although oral health promotion and education have become expected parts of dental care, the need for restorative treatments remains relatively high. We aimed to explore how barriers to preventive advice and treatment for NHS patients may be hindering the provision of prevention in oral health to patients from the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken between March 2016-February 2017 with four groups of stakeholders: dentists, insurers, policy makers and patient participants. The interviews were analysed using deductive, reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-two stakeholders participated: 6 dentists, 5 insurers, 10 policy makers, and 11 patient participants. Four themes were developed: Perspectives on the clarity of oral health messaging and patient's knowledge, The variability of prioritising prevention, Influences of the dentist-patient relationship on effective communication and Motivation to enact positive oral health behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this research indicate that patients' knowledge of and priority placed on prevention is variable. Participants believed that more targeted education could be valuable in enhancing these. A patient's relationship with their dentist could also influence their level of knowledge through the information shared with them, their receptivity to the preventive messages and the value they place on it. However, even with knowledge, prioritising prevention and a good patient-dentist relationship, without motivation to engage in preventive behaviour the impact of these is reduced. Our findings are discussed in relation to the COM-B model of behaviour change.

Review of 1.75 million referrals over 34 months identifies the disruptive impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on oral surgery care in England: a service evaluation.

Aims This study aimed to use electronic referral management system (eRMS) oral surgery data across multiple sites in England to evaluate the service over a 34-month period in relation to: 1) pre- and post-pandemic referral rates in oral surgery; 2) examining the data for signs of inequality in obtaining a referral for oral surgery; and 3) considering the impact on service provision for oral surgery in England.Methods Oral surgery referral data were available from an eRMS for areas of England covered by this service for the 34-month period of March 2019 to December 2021 (inclusive), which included 12 months of pre-pandemic data and the first 22 months of the pandemic. The data were from the following regions in England: Central Midlands; Cheshire and Merseyside; East Anglia and Essex; Greater Manchester; Lancashire; Thames Valley; and Yorkshire and the Humber.Results The total number of referrals received was 1,766,895 during this 34-month period, with pre-pandemic referral levels averaging at 25,498 per month, with a reduction to 698 per month in April 2020. Referrals have risen to a peak of 217,646 for the month of November 2021. An average of 1.5% of referrals were rejected pre-pandemic, compared with 2.7% per month post-pandemic.Discussion Pre-pandemic referral numbers were predictably stable within a narrow range which have then increased dramatically post-pandemic. The variations in oral surgery referral patterns place significant strain on oral surgery services across England. This not only has consequences on the patient experience, but also on workforce and workforce development, to ensure that there is not a long-term destabilising impact.Conclusion Analysis of 1.75 million referrals to oral surgery services in England has highlighted the ongoing impact of the pandemic and the need to actively minimise adverse impacts on patients, NHS services and the workforce.

Development and validation of an International Patient's Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire. RESULTS: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty-three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non-essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test-run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test-re-test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3-0.7, most p < .0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed-methods approach enabled the development of a multi-language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally.

Improving the fit of filtering facepiece respirators.

Aims To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of smartphone customised frame technology to improve the fit of disposable filtering facepiece class 3 (FFP3) respirators for dental staff who previously failed fit testing.Method In total, 20 volunteers who previously failed FFP3 fit testing were recruited to use smartphone technology (Bellus3D FaceApp) to have a 3D-printed bespoke face frame produced for them. They underwent qualitative fit testing with and without the frame with two freely available disposable FFP3 respirator designs (mask A: GVS F31000 Segre folded model; mask B: Valmy Spireor). The order of testing was random. Ease of use of the smartphone technology and the comfort of the frame were determined by questionnaire.Results Fit test passes increased from 5% without the frame to 70% and 95%, respectively, for masks A and B with the frame (p <0.01). Very few participants reported using the technology as difficult (n = 1/20) or the frame uncomfortable (n = 3/20) or difficult to wear (n = 0/20).Conclusion Customised frames produced using smartphone technology improved qualitative fit test pass rates for two commonly available FFP3 respirators. Using smartphone technology for frame design, wearing a frame and frame comfort levels were all acceptable to the majority of participants.

An evaluation of referrer factors for 98,671 referrals made to the West Yorkshire oral surgery managed clinical network over a three-year period.

Introduction Patients referred from primary dental care to hospital-based specialists in high volumes can contribute to significant NHS service pressures. Surprisingly, little is understood about what contributes to referral factors.Aims To gain new insight into the referral factors from primary dental care by interrogating the tri-speciality West Yorkshire managed clinical network (MCN) referral pathway data for a 36-month period (2016-2019).Methods Anonymised referrals from the electronic referral management system were collated for analyses.Results There were 98,671 referrals within the 36-month period, 12.3% of which were rejected. Of those accepted for triage, 76% were directed at oral surgery, with >60% accounted for by exodontia. In total, 10% of referrers accounted for 60% of all referrals. Peak referral occurred five years after General Dental Council registration.Discussion This is the first report of referral data from a tri-speciality MCN with exodontia referrals predominating. The data set demonstrates variation in referrer behaviours despite referral guidance. Referrals should be based upon patient need but patterns observed in this study suggested possible associations with high and low referral patterns which warrant further research.Conclusions Interrogation of the referral database suggests that there are interesting patterns of referral which may be associated with characteristics of the referrer as well as their patients' needs. Further investigation could inform improved processes and service design, as well as education delivery and workforce development.

Foundation dentists supporting vaccination programmes in England.

Background In 2020/21, as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response and for the first time in England, newly qualified foundation dentists (FDs) were trained to participate in flu and COVID-19 vaccination programmes to offer additional workforce capacity. The largest of these efforts was in Yorkshire and the Humber where 106 FDs were trained and ready to mobilise. The aim of this service evaluation was to appraise the use of FDs in delivering vaccinations.Methods Mixed methods using an online questionnaire to FDs and in-depth remote interviews conducted with host organisations, Public Health England, Health Education England and others.Results The questionnaire response rate was 89% (n = 94), with 54 FDs having participated in vaccinations at a rate of 50-100 vaccines per day. All were confident with flu vaccine administration and most (n = 44/54) with COVID-19 vaccination. Eleven stakeholder interviews were conducted. Main barriers included the siloed delivery of dental care from other health services, resulting in collaborative barriers and a lack of understanding about the profession's skillsets. Facilitators included host organisations' capacity to hold multiple honorary contracts and provide competency sign-off.Conclusion Utilising the dental workforce to deliver vaccinations was feasible at a time of crisis and when trainees' access to dental patients was limited.

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.

Maintaining and improving mouth care for care home residents: A participatory research project.

BACKGROUND: Many people residing in nursing or residential care homes (also called long-term care facilities) live with physical or cognitive difficulties. Staff working in these environments often help residents (particularly those with more advanced dementia) with their personal care needs, including maintaining mouth care and health. Poor oral health is associated with many difficulties, including increased risk of respiratory problems, pain and discomfort. Yet, concerns have been raised that staff may not have the knowledge and skills to effectively support residents with oral care and health. There is therefore an important gap between what is known about the importance of maintaining oral health (scientific evidence) and daily practice in long-term care environments. OBJECTIVES: To work with care home staff: (1) to create a learning culture to address how to promote mouth care for residents, particularly when a resident resists support with this aspect of care; and (2) to effect mouth care practice changes (if required) using participatory and inclusive research cycles. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. Four participatory research 'cycles' were conducted. Cycle one explored existing literature to develop accessible guidance on strategies that staff could use to support residents to maintain and improve oral care, particularly when a resident may resist such care. Cycle two built on this review to determine knowledge levels within the care team. This highlighted deficiencies in staff knowledge, skills and competence for providing mouth care and their need for training to address this. Cycle three identified evidence-based strategies to develop staff understanding and knowledge. Cycle four brought together experts from nursing, dentistry, behaviour change, systematic reviews and care homes research to develop a grant application to progress this work further. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an example of the processes undertaken in a participatory research project, bringing together science and practice to improve an essential area of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using participatory research approaches in this setting can allow the effective translation of uncertainties in care and practice into questions that can be addressed by research, leading to meaningful outcomes for those living and working in care homes.

Corrigendum: The Dental Team: An Additional Resource for Delivering Vaccinations.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.606242.].

Examining the effectiveness of different dental recall strategies on maintenance of optimum oral health: the INTERVAL dental recalls randomised controlled trial.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of different frequencies of dental recall over a four-year period.Design A multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment. Participants were randomised to receive a dental check-up at six-monthly, 24-monthly or risk-based recall intervals. A two-strata trial design was used, with participants randomised within the 24-month stratum if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or six-month recall interval.Setting UK primary dental care.Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.Main outcome measures The percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), cost-effectiveness.Results In total, 2,372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices. Of those, 648 were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1,724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing between intervention arms in any comparison. For those eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month versus six-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91%, 95% CI (-5.02%, 3.20%); the 24-month group versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07%, 95% CI (-3.99%, 4.12%). For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month adjusted mean difference was 0.78%, 95% CI (-1.17%, 2.72%). There was no evidence of a difference in OHRQoL (0-56 scale, higher score for poorer OHRQoL) between intervention arms in any comparison. For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month effect size was -0.35, 95% CI (-1.02, 0.32). There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference between the groups in any comparison in either eligibility stratum for any of the secondary clinical or patient-reported outcomes.Conclusion Over a four-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a six-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, six-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, patients greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups.

Risk-based, 6-monthly and 24-monthly dental check-ups for adults: the INTERVAL three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients are encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular 6-month intervals, irrespective of their risk of developing dental disease. Stakeholders lack evidence of the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different recall strategies and the optimal recall interval for maintenance of oral health. OBJECTIVES: To test effectiveness and assess the cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals over a 4-year period. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment at 4 years and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant perspective costs were combined with benefits estimated from a general population discrete choice experiment. A two-stratum trial design was used, with participants randomised to the 24-month interval if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or 6-month recall interval. SETTING: UK primary care dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, dentate, NHS patients who had visited their dentist in the previous 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to attend for a dental check-up at one of three dental recall intervals: 6-month, risk-based or 24-month recall. MAIN OUTCOMES: Clinical - gingival bleeding on probing; patient - oral health-related quality of life; economic - three analysis frameworks: (1) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, (2) incremental net (societal) benefit and (3) incremental net (dental health) benefit. RESULTS: A total of 2372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices; 648 participants were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding between intervention arms in any comparison. For the eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month (n = 138) versus 6-month group (n = 135) had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91 (95% confidence interval -5.02 to 3.20); the risk-based (n = 143) versus 6-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.98 (95% confidence interval -5.05 to 3.09); the 24-month versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07 (95% confidence interval -3.99 to 4.12). For the overall sample, the risk-based (n = 749) versus 6-month (n = 737) adjusted mean difference was 0.78 (95% confidence interval -1.17 to 2.72). There was no evidence of a difference in oral health-related quality of life between intervention arms in any comparison. For the economic evaluation, under framework 1 (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) the results were highly uncertain, and it was not possible to identify the optimal recall strategy. Under framework 2 (net societal benefit), 6-month recalls were the most efficient strategy with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 78% to 100% across the eligible and combined strata, with findings driven by the high value placed on more frequent recall services in the discrete choice experiment. Under framework 3 (net dental health benefit), 24-month recalls were the most likely strategy to deliver positive net (dental health) benefit among those eligible for 24-month recall, with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 65% to 99%. For the combined group, the optimal strategy was less clear. Risk-based recalls were more likely to be the most efficient recall strategy in scenarios where the costing perspective was widened to include participant-incurred costs, and in the Scottish subgroup. LIMITATIONS: Information regarding factors considered by dentists to inform the risk-based interval and the interaction with patients to determine risk and agree the interval were not collected. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 4-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a 6-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups; therefore, the most efficient recall strategy depends on the scope of the cost and benefit valuation that decision-makers wish to consider. FUTURE WORK: Assessment of the impact of risk assessment tools in informing risk-based interval decision-making and techniques for communicating a variable recall interval to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95933794. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)] and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Traditionally, dentists have encouraged both patients at low risk and patients at high risk of developing dental disease to attend their dental practices for regular 6-month 'check-ups'. There is, however, little evidence available for either patients or dentists to use when deciding on the best dental recall interval (i.e. time between dental check-ups) for maintaining oral health. In this study, we wanted to find out, for adult patients who regularly attend the dentist, what interval of time between dental check-ups maintains optimum oral health and represents value for money. A total of 2372 adults who regularly attended 51 different dental practices across Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales were involved. Patients aged 18 years or over who received all or part of their care as NHS patients were randomly allocated to groups to receive a check-up either every 6 months, at an individualised recall interval based on their own risk of oral disease (risk-based recall), or every 24 months (if considered at low risk by their dentist). The recruited adults completed questionnaires at their first trial appointment and then every year of the 4-year study. Their attendance at recall appointments was recorded and they received a clinical assessment taken by study staff at the end of their involvement at year 4. After 4 years, there was no evidence of a difference in the oral health of patients allocated to a 6-month or variable risk-based recall interval. For patients considered by their dentists to be suitable for a 24-month recall interval, there was no difference between those in the 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall intervals. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups. The recall strategy that offers the best value for money to patients and the NHS, therefore, depends on what people and decision-makers wish to value within a health-care system.

Clinician and Patient Factors Influencing Treatment Decisions: Ethnographic Study of Antibiotic Prescribing and Operative Procedures in Out-of-Hours and General Dental Practices.

Operative treatment is indicated for most toothache/dental abscesses, yet antibiotics instead of procedures are often prescribed. This ethnographic study aimed to identify clinician and patient factors influencing urgent dental care for adults during actual appointments; and to identify elements sensitive to context. Appointments were observed in out-of-hours and general dental practices. Follow-up interviews took place with dentists, dental nurses, and patients. Dentist and patient factors were identified through thematic analysis of observation records and appointment/interview transcripts. Dentist factors were based on a published list of factors influencing antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute conditions across primary health care and presented within the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour model. Contextually sensitive elements were revealed by comparing the factors between settings. In total, thirty-one dentist factors and nineteen patient factors were identified. Beliefs about antibiotics, goals for the appointment and access to dental services were important for both dentists and patients. Dentist factors included beliefs about the lifetime impact of urgent dental procedures on patients. Patient factors included their communication and negotiation skills. Contextual elements included dentists' concerns about inflicting pain on regular patients in general dental practice; and patients' difficulties accessing care to complete temporary treatment provided out of hours. This improved understanding of factors influencing shared decisions about treatments presents significant opportunity for new, evidence-based, contextually sensitive antibiotic stewardship interventions.

Study Protocol for an Online Questionnaire Survey on Symptoms/Signs, Protective Measures, Level of Awareness and Perception Regarding COVID-19 Outbreak among Dentists. A Global Survey.

The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have developed preparedness and prevention checklists for healthcare professionals regarding the containment of COVID-19. The aim of the present protocol is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak among dentists in different countries where various prevalence of the epidemic has been reported. Several research groups around the world were contacted by the central management team. The online anonymous survey will be conducted on a convenience sample of dentists working both in national health systems and in private or public clinics. In each country/area, a high (~5-20%) proportion of dentists working there will be invited to participate. The questionnaire, developed and standardized previously in Italy, has four domains: (1) personal data; (2) symptoms/signs relative to COVID-19; (3) working conditions and PPE (personal protective equipment) adopted after the infection's outbreak; (4) knowledge and self-perceived risk of infection. The methodology of this international survey will include translation, pilot testing, and semantic adjustment of the questionnaire. The data will be entered on an Excel spreadsheet and quality checked. Completely anonymous data analyses will be performed by the central management team. This survey will give an insight into the dental profession during COVID-19 pandemic globally.

The FiCTION trial: Child oral health-related quality of life and dental anxiety across three treatment strategies for managing caries in young children.

OBJECTIVES: The FiCTION trial compared co-primary outcomes (dental pain and/or infection) and secondary outcomes (child oral health-related quality of life [COHRQOL], child dental anxiety, cost-effectiveness, caries development/progression and acceptability) across three treatment strategies (Conventional with Prevention [C + P]; Biological with Prevention [B + P]; Prevention Alone [PA]) for managing caries in children in primary care. COHRQOL and child dental anxiety experiences are reported upon here. METHODS: A multi-centre, 3-arm, parallel-group, unblinded patient-randomized controlled trial of 3- to 7-year-olds treated under NHS contracts was conducted in 72 general dental practices in England, Wales and Scotland. Child participants (with at least one primary molar with dentinal caries) were randomized (1:1:1) to one of three treatment arms with the intention of being managed according to allocated arm for 3 years (minimum 23 months). Randomization was via a centrally administered system using random permuted blocks of variable length. At baseline and final visit, accompanying parents/caregivers completed a parental questionnaire including COHRQOL (16 item P-CPQ-16), and at every visit, child- and parental-questionnaire-based data were collected for child-based dental trait and state anxiety. Statistical analyses were conducted on complete cases from the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis set. RESULTS: A total of 1144 children were randomized (C + P: 386; B + P: 381; PA: 377). The mITT analysis set included the 1058 children who attended at least one study visit (C + P: 352; B + P: 352; PA: 354). Median follow-up was 33.8 months (IQR: 23.8, 36.7). The P-CPQ-16 overall score could be calculated after simple imputation at both baseline and final visit for 560 children (C + P: 189; B + P: 189; PA: 182). There was no evidence of a difference in the estimated adjusted mean P-CPQ-16 at the final visit which was, on average, 0.3 points higher (97.5% CI: -1.1 to 1.6) in B + P than C + P and 0.2 points higher, on average, (97.5% CI: -1.2 to 1.5) in PA than for C + P. Child dental trait anxiety and child dental state anxiety, measured at every treatment visit, showed no evidence of any statistically or clinically significant difference between arms in adjusted mean scores averaged over all follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The differences noted in COHRQOL and child-based dental trait and dental state anxiety measures across three treatment strategies for managing dental caries in primary teeth were small, and not considered to be clinically meaningful. The findings highlight the importance of including all three strategies in a clinician's armamentarium, to manage childhood caries throughout the young child's life and achieve positive experiences of dental care.