One-to-one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health.

BACKGROUND: Effective oral hygiene measures carried out on a regular basis are vital to maintain good oral health. One-to-one oral hygiene advice (OHA) within the dental setting is often provided as a means to motivate individuals and to help achieve improved levels of oral health. However, it is unclear if one-to-one OHA in a dental setting is effective in improving oral health and what method(s) might be most effective and efficient. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of one-to-one OHA, provided by a member of the dental team within the dental setting, on patients' oral health, hygiene, behaviour, and attitudes compared to no advice or advice in a different format. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 November 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 10 November 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 November 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials (10 November 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Reference lists of relevant articles and previously published systematic reviews were handsearched. The authors of eligible trials were contacted, where feasible, to identify any unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of one-to-one OHA delivered by a dental care professional in a dental care setting with a minimum of 8 weeks follow-up. We included healthy participants or participants who had a well-defined medical condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors carried out selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Consensus was achieved by discussion, or involvement of a third review author if required. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review with data available for a total of 4232 participants. The included studies reported a wide variety of interventions, study populations, clinical outcomes and outcome measures. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies and it was not deemed appropriate to pool data in a meta-analysis. We summarised data by categorising similar interventions into comparison groups.Comparison 1: Any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHAFour studies compared any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHA.Two studies reported the outcome of gingivitis. Although one small study had contradictory results at 3 months and 6 months, the other study showed very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at all time points (very low-quality evidence).The same two studies reported the outcome of plaque. There was low-quality evidence that these interventions showed a benefit for OHA in plaque reduction at all time points.Two studies reported the outcome of dental caries at 6 months and 12 months respectively. There was very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at 12 months.Comparison 2: Personalised one-to-one OHA versus routine one-to-one OHAFour studies compared personalised OHA versus routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).Comparison 3: Self-management versus professional OHAFive trials compared some form of self-management with some form of professional OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis or plaque (very low quality). None of the studies measured dental caries.Comparison 4: Enhanced one-to-one OHA versus one-to-one OHASeven trials compared some form of enhanced OHA with some form of routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend any specific one-to-one OHA method as being effective in improving oral health or being more effective than any other method. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to determine the most effective, efficient method of one-to-one OHA for oral health maintenance and improvement. The design of such trials should be cognisant of the limitations of the available evidence presented in this Cochrane Review.

Factors that influence delivery of tobacco cessation support in general dental practice: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the literature reporting factors that are associated with the delivery of lifestyle support in general dental practice. METHODS: A systematic review of the quantitative observational studies describing activities to promote the general health of adults in primary care general dental practice. Behavior change included tobacco cessation, alcohol reduction, diet, weight management, and physical activity. Tooth brushing and oral hygiene behaviors were excluded as the focus of this review was on the common risk factors that affect general health as well as oral health. RESULTS: Six cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies only reported activities to support tobacco cessation. As well as tobacco cessation one study also reported activities related to alcohol usage, physical activity, and Body Mass Index. Perceptions of time availability consistently correlated with activities and beliefs about tobacco cessation, alongside the smoking status of the dental professional. Dentists who perceive having more available time were more likely to discuss smoking with patients, prescribe smoking cessation treatments and direct patients toward (signpost to) lifestyle support services. Dental professionals who smoke were less likely to give smoking cessation advice and counselling than nonsmokers. Finally, the data showed that professional support may be relevant. Professionals who work in solo practices or those who felt a lack of support from the wider professional team (peer support) were more likely to report barriers to delivering lifestyle support. CONCLUSION: Organizational changes in dental practices to encourage more team working and professional time for lifestyle support may influence delivery. Dental professionals who are smokers may require training to develop their beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions.

Validity of the UKCAT in applicant selection and predicting exam performance in UK dental students.

The United Kingdom's Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) aims to assess candidates' "natural talent" for dentistry. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of the UKCAT for dental school applicant selection. The relationship of the UKCAT with demographic and academic variables was examined, assessing if the likelihood of being offered a place at a UK dental school was predicted by demographic factors and academic selection tools (predicted grades and existing school results). Finally, the validity of these selection tools in predicting first-year dental exam performance was assessed. Correlational and regression analyses showed that females and poorer students were more likely to have lower UKCAT scores. Gender and social class did not, however, predict first-year dental exam performance. UKCAT scores predicted the likelihood of the candidate being offered a place in the dental course; however, they did not predict exam performance during the first year of the course. Indeed, the only predictor of dental exam performance was existing school results. These findings argue against the use of the UKCAT as the sole determinant in dental applicant selection, instead highlighting the value of using existing school results.