Citizen science to improve patient and public involvement in GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry (the GUIDE platform).

BACKGROUND: Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry. METHODS: We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms. CONCLUSION: Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript.

Do electronic cigarette devices/vapes impact the colour of dental ceramics?

DESIGN: In vitro primary research study. CASE SELECTION AND METHOD: Five frequently used restorative dental ceramic materials (pressable ceramics (PEmax), pressed and layered ceramics (LEmax), layered zirconia (LZr), monolithic zirconia (MZr) and porcelain fused to metal (PFM)) were selected and manufactured in shade A1. Samples of each material were prepared in discs and kept in water at 37°C for 24 hours then aged via thermocycling. Samples were positioned in a plastic chamber to mimic the intraoral setting and exposed to vape smoke through an artificial lung vacuum system. The procedure was repeated until target exposure puffs were achieved, ranging from 250-1500 puffs. The ECDs/vape device, refill juice and concentration used for puff generation were chosen based on a survey reporting high consumption. A spectrophotometer was used to measure sample colour through L*a*b values (lightness, axes of green, red, blue and yellow). CIELAB formula was used to calculate total colour difference (∆E) at six time intervals. DATA ANALYSIS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's posthoc testing was used to compare mean ∆E values with 95% confidence intervals for all specimens. Cut off for significance was α < 0.05. RESULTS: All ceramics showed colour variation following exposure to ECD aerosol. With the exception of PEmax, all tested materials lightness values changed following exposure to 250 puffs. At 1500 puff exposures, LEmax, LZr and MZr showed significant colour changes, whereas PEmax and PFM showed clinically acceptable and insignificant change. CONCLUSIONS: Colour change of dental ceramics varies depending on the ceramic material used and puff exposure number. Exposure to ECD aerosols can result in aesthetically noticeable colour changes in LEmax, LZr and MZr. Colour changes demonstrated are less than those caused by traditional tobacco smoking.

Are zirconia crowns the superior choice when restoring primary posterior molars?

Data sources Electronic database searches were carried out using predefined search terms using Embase, Google Scholar, Medline, The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. The Trip medical database was also used to identify randomised control trials investigating stainless steel and zirconia crowns. Studies published from 1 January 2000 until 6 June 2021 were included, and reference lists of included studies analysed to ensure data saturation along with grey literature searches.Study selection Inclusion criteria included research published in English only, randomised control trials investigating the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of zirconia crowns compared to stainless steel crowns, the rehabilitation of pulp-treated posterior primary teeth and randomised control trials with children in good health. Expert opinion, case reports and reviews were excluded. Studies with a follow-up period of less than 12 months, studies including children with special care requirements or non-compliant children were also excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers (AKP, VKC) were involved with the primary search of abstracts and titles independently; both reviewers were involved in full text assessment. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (NRV). The study characteristics, number of teeth evaluated, follow-up duration, type of zirconia and stainless steel crowns, outcome assessed and outcome results were extracted. Extracted data was analysed using Review Manager, Version 5.3 and dichotomous data was summarised as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data was summarised as mean difference. Heterogeneity was summarised by I2 scores and a random-effects model and Mantel-Haenszel statistical test was used.Results From the initial 641 studies screened, six studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and were included for analysis. Risk of bias assessment for the included studies was graded as 'low' for three of the six included studies and 'some concern' for the remaining three studies. This was based upon allocation concealment in the randomised control trials. Clinical failures were observed in 63 of 497 events. Rehabilitation with zirconia crowns may result in less clinical failures than stainless steel crowns: risk ratio 0.48; 95% CI (0.15-1.52) p = 0.021. Gingival health was better with zirconia rather than stainless steel crowns: risk ratio 0.32; 95% CI (-0.42-0.23) p <0.001.Conclusions Primary posterior teeth restored with zirconia crowns may have 52% less risk of experiencing clinical failures than teeth with stainless steel crowns and better gingival health than stainless steel crowns, observed after 12 months. However, due to the low quality of included studies and 'very low' grade rating of the evidence provided, further clinical trials are required to provide further evidence on the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of zirconia and stainless steel crowns.

Clinical and radiographic assessment and restoration of maxillary sinus function in relation to oro-antral fistula closure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine current practice in assessment of maxillary sinus health during oro-antral fistula closure. METHOD: A systematic review using specific MeSH headings between 1990 and September 2021 on Medline, Ovid, and PubMed was performed. The inclusion criterion was closure of oro-antral fistula in adult patients. Exclusion criteria were oro-antral fistula arising in children; or from trauma, malignancy, or developmental abnormality; or any osteonecrotic lesion of bone. Risk of bias for individual papers was not assessed. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence were recorded. RESULTS: 4309 papers were identified, and 119 were eligible for review. Nineteen were from otolaryngology (16%), 25 from combined ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and oral/oral and maxillofacial (OS/OMF) surgery (21%), and 75 from OS/OMF surgery (63%). Preoperative rhinoscopy and cross-sectional imaging were reported in 33 papers (28%), reflecting the role of ENT with or without OS/OMFS. Sixty-eight did not record any formal assessment of maxillary sinus health (57%), of which 60 were from OS/OMF surgery (50%). Use of computed tomography was reported in 58 papers (49%), and use of cone beam computed tomography was reported in 8 papers (7%) but did not correlate with assessment of sinus health. DISCUSSION: Most surgery for oro-antral fistual closure was undertaken without objective assessment of maxillary sinus health, pre- or postoperatively. The involvement of ENT was associated with formal assessment of maxillary sinus health.

Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP): a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Progression of dental caries can result in irreversible pulpal damage. Partial irreversible pulpitis is the initial stage of this damage, confined to the coronal pulp whilst the radicular pulp shows little or no sign of infection. Preserving the pulp with sustained vitality and developing minimally invasive biologically based therapies are key themes within contemporary clinical practice. However, root canal treatment involving complete removal of the pulp is often the only option (other than extraction) given to patients with irreversible pulpitis, with substantial NHS and patient incurred costs. The European Society of Endodontology's (ESE 2019) recent consensus statement recommends full pulpotomy, where the inflamed coronal pulp is removed with the goal of keeping the radicular pulp vital, as a more minimally invasive technique, potentially avoiding complex root canal treatment. Although this technique may be provided in secondary care, it has not been routinely implemented or evaluated in UK General Dental Practice. METHOD: This feasibility study aims to identify and assess in a primary care setting the training needs of general dental practitioners and clinical fidelity of the full pulpotomy intervention, estimate likely eligible patient pool and develop recruitment materials ahead of the main randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of full pulpotomy compared to root canal treatment in pre/molar teeth of adults 16 years and older showing signs indicative of irreversible pulpitis. The feasibility study will recruit and train 10 primary care dentists in the full pulpotomy technique. Dentists will recruit and provide full pulpotomy to 40 participants (four per practice) with indications of partial irreversible pulpitis. DISCUSSION: The Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP) study will address the lack of high-quality evidence in the treatment of irreversible pulpitis, to aid dental practitioners, patients and policymakers in their decision-making. The PIP feasibility study will inform the main study on the practicality of providing both training and provision of the full pulpotomy technique in general dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17973604 . Registered on 28 January 2021. Protocol version Protocol version: 1; date: 03.02.2021.

CORE OUTCOME SETS AND DENTAL PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES.

In clinical research, outcomes are the results or 'endpoints' that are measured to assess whether clinical interventions have been successful or whether one treatment works better than another. There are a vast number of outcomes that have been reported in dental trials; the number, diversity and questionable relevance of these outcomes can lead to research wastage. Ultimately, this can lead to uncertainty for patients and dental professionals as to the most effective prevention and treatment options available as the evidence available may not use outcomes important to them. This article introduces the reader to core outcome sets (COS), covering the background to this area of research; their purpose and role; as well as the methodology of development. The authors reflect on their experience of leading the development of a core outcome set for periodontal trials and we highlight other dental COSs already developed and their inclusion of dental Patient Reported Outcomes (dPROs).

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC). OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.

Developing a core outcome set for periodontal trials.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreement which outcomes should be measured when investigating interventions for periodontal diseases. It is difficult to compare or combine studies with different outcomes; resulting in research wastage and uncertainty for patients and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: Develop a core outcome set (COS) relevant to key stakeholders for use in effectiveness trials investigating prevention and management of periodontal diseases. METHODS: Mixed method study involving literature review; online Delphi Study; and face-to-face consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders: patients, dentists, hygienist/therapists, periodontists, researchers. RESULTS: The literature review identified 37 unique outcomes. Delphi round 1: 20 patients and 51 dental professional and researchers prioritised 25 and suggested an additional 11 outcomes. Delphi round 2: from the resulting 36 outcomes, 13 patients and 39 dental professionals and researchers prioritised 22 outcomes. A face-to-face consensus meeting was hosted in Dundee, Scotland by an independent chair. Eight patients and six dental professional and researchers participated. The final COS contains: Probing depths, Quality of life, Quantified levels of gingivitis, Quantified levels of plaque, Tooth loss. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this COS will ensure the results of future effectiveness trials for periodontal diseases are more relevant to patients and dental professionals, reducing research wastage. This could reduce uncertainty for patients and dental professionals by ensuring the evidence used to inform their choices is meaningful to them. It could also strengthen the quality and certainty of the evidence about the relative effectiveness of interventions. REGISTRATION: COMET Database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/265?result=true.

Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Teeth (SCRiPT) for the treatment of deep carious lesions: a randomised controlled clinical trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most adults experience dental caries during their lifetime and the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey reported that 85% of adults have at least one dental restoration. Conservative removal of tooth tissue for both primary and secondary caries reduces the risk of failure due to tooth-restoration, complex fracture as well as remaining tooth surfaces being less vulnerable to further caries. However, despite its prevalence there is no consensus on how much caries to remove prior to placing a restoration to achieve optimal outcomes. Evidence for selective compared to complete or near-complete caries removal suggests there may be benefits for selective removal in sustaining tooth vitality, therefore avoiding abscess formation and pain, so eliminating the need for more complex and costly treatment or eventual tooth loss. However, the evidence is of low scientific quality and mainly gleaned from studies in primary teeth. METHOD: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm patient randomised controlled clinical trial including an internal pilot set in primary dental care in Scotland and England. Dental health professionals will recruit 623 participants over 12-years of age with deep carious lesions in their permanent posterior teeth. Participants will have a single tooth randomised to either the selective caries removal or complete caries removal treatment arm. Baseline measures and outcome data (during the 3-year follow-up period) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. A mixed-method process evaluation will complement the clinical and economic outcome evaluation and examine implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. The primary outcome at three years is sustained tooth vitality. The primary economic outcome is net benefit modelled over a lifetime horizon. Clinical secondary outcomes include pulp exposure, progession of caries, restoration failure; as well as patient-centred and economic outcomes. DISCUSSION: SCRiPT will provide evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-beneficial approach to managing deep carious lesions in permanent posterior teeth in primary care. This will support general dental practitioners, patients and policy makers in decision making. Trial Registration Trial registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76503940. Date of Registration: 30.10.2019. URL of trial registry record: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76503940?q=ISRCTN76503940%20&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search .

Does a history of periodontal disease affect implant survival?

Data sources Three electronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) with date of publication between January 2003 and May 2018. Only articles written in English were included. Following electronic searches, the authors conducted manual searches of oral implant/periodontal journals from January 2012 to May 2018. In the event of disagreement on article selection, a further senior reviewer would make the final decision on its inclusion or exclusion following discussion.Study selection In total, 172 articles from the electronic search and ten from manual search were identified for initial screening. From the title and abstract, 18 articles were identified for full-text screening. Following this, 13 articles were included for quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The articles assessed the impact of history of periodontitis (HP) on implant survival, radiographic bone loss, pocket depth and bleeding on probing around the dental implant. All studies were either cohort or controlled studies. Seven of the 13 identified studies were prospective. Included studies fulfilled the following criteria: any human studies with supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) application, details of SPT provided in the studies for implant maintenance, compares the outcomes of implants from both patients with and without a HP and peri-implant conditions recorded.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to carry out quality assessment. Data was extracted to calculate risk ratio (RR) of implant survival, weighted mean difference (WMD) for radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index in patients with and without a HP.Results Implant survival rate was assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes also assessed were radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque indices. In implants with rough surfaces, the HP group showed a reduced implant survival rate (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, P <0.001) even under regular supportive post-implant treatment. They also showed more radiographic marginal bone loss (WMD: 0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.2-0.48, P <0.001), pocket depth (WMD: 0.47 mm, 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, P <0.001) and bleeding on probing (WMD: 0.08 mm, 95% CI: 0.04-0.11, P <0.001) when compared to the non-HP group. In implants with a machined surface, again the HP group had more radiographic bone loss (WMD: 0.88 mm, 95% CI: 0.65-1.11, P <0.001) than the non-HP group. However, in implants with machined surfaces, there was no statistically significant difference in survival rate between HP and non-HP groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92-1.04, P = 0.895).Conclusion In implants with rough surfaces, a history of periodontal disease has a negative impact on survival rate, even with SPT.

How can local anaesthesia be improved in the management of irreversible pulpitis?

Background Pain management in endodontic treatment is often managed with local anaesthetic, occasionally supplemented with oral medication. Currently, there is little evidence to suggest the best combination of local anaesthetic and oral medication to provide optimal pain control in symptomatic irreversible pulpits. A network meta-analysis was carried out to identify the best agent/technique for pulpal anaesthesia in both the maxilla and mandible in irreversible pulpits.Methods Electronic searches of Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar. Reference lists of suitable studies along with manual searches to identify further appropriate studies were also carried out. Sixty-one randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, investigating different local anaesthetic agents, methods of administration, and the adjunct use of medications and alternative therapies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data collection. Heterogeneity was assessed using chi-squared and I2 tests. Studies comparing the same interventions were pooled to define direct comparison estimates. A common comparator was used to compare indirect comparison estimates. Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate effect.Results The results were presented on forest plots; 53 studies investigated irreversible pulpitis in the mandible, seven studies in the maxilla and one in both. In the mandible, inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine was the control. Direct comparison of outcomes found that the best interventions in the mandible were pre-medication with aceclofenac and paracetamol followed by IANB, or IANB with 2% lidocaine with buccal infiltration with 4% articaine, both compared to the control alone. Indirect comparison found pre-medication with ibuprofen and paracetamol before IANB to be the best intervention compared to the control. No significant differences were found between the interventions in the maxilla.Conclusion The quality of all the included evidence was very low and further studies need to be carried out, focusing on larger sample sizes and better quality of studies.

Examining the impact of oral hygiene advice and/or scale and polish on periodontal disease: the IQuaD cluster factorial randomised controlled trial.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of different frequencies of scale and polish (S&P) treatments in combination with different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA).Design Multi-centre, multi-level cluster randomised factorial open trial with blinded outcome evaluation. UK dental practices were cluster randomised to deliver OHA as usual or personalised. In a separate randomisation, patients were allocated to receive S&P 6-monthly, 12-monthly or never.Setting UK primary dental care.Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.Main outcome measures The percent of sites with bleeding on probing, patient confidence in self-care, incremental net benefits (INB) over three years.Results Sixty-three practices and 1,877 adult patients were randomised and 1,327 analysed (clinical outcome). There was no statistically significant or clinically important difference in gingival bleeding between the three S&P groups (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference 0.87% sites, 95% CI: 1.6 to 3.3, p = 0.48) or between personalised or usual OHA groups (difference -2.5% sites, -95%CI: -8.3 to 3.3, p = 0.39), or oral hygiene self-efficacy (cognitive impact) between either group (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063, p = 0.543). The general population place a high value on, and are willing to pay for, S&P services. However, from a dental health perspective, none of the interventions were cost-effective.Conclusion Results suggest S&P treatments and delivering brief personalised OHA provide no clinical benefit and are therefore an inefficient approach to improving dental health (38% of sites were bleeding whatever intervention was received). However, the general population value both interventions.

A comparison of techniques for the explantation of osseointegrated dental implants.

Data sources A search of electronic databases (Embase and PubMed) was carried out along with manual and grey searches of published and unpublished journals. Publication year was from first available until 23 August 2018.Study selection Titles and abstracts from the original search were reviewed by two authors. Studies were chosen for full-text analysis and data extraction after inter-reviewer agreement. Disagreement was resolved by discussion and Cohen's kappa was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement. An initial search gave 2,197 articles and, following screening, 18 publications were included in the study. Five articles were case series and ten were case reports describing one to nine cases. Three publications reported on comparatively large sample sizes, one prospectively and two retrospectively. None of the studies had control groups or blinding. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Studies were deemed to have high, low or unclear levels of bias by two examiners. All were considered high risk of bias. Publications included fulfilled the following criteria: English language, human studies, endosseous osseointegrated dental implants, explantation technique described and reason for explantation clearly reported.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline process. Studies chosen for analysis were examined and the following data parameters were included: study design, number of patients, number of implants removed, implant system, reason for explantation, explantation technique and its success or failure, complications, flap access, socket grafting and immediate implant placement.Results The following five techniques for explantation of dental implants were identified: reverse torque, trephines, piezosurgery, burs and laser-assisted explantation. Reverse torque was the most commonly described technique (284 implants) with 87.7% success. Burs were used to remove 49 implants with 100% success, while trephines were used for explantation of 35 implants with 94% success. Piezosurgery and Er, Cr: YSGG laser removed 11 implants and one implant, respectively, with 100% success. One study reported perforation of the maxillary sinus floor following the use of a trephine technique, while another reported the fracture of three implants using reverse torque. The quality of the studies and lack of available data prevented further analysis. Results were presented in a narrative format.Conclusion The authors recommend reverse torque as the first choice for explantation. Despite its inferior success rate, it is the most conservative technique in terms of bone removal and flap access, meaning there is a greater opportunity for immediate implant placement.

Do viruses play a role in peri-implantitis?

Data sources A search of electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Oral Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) along with a manual search of various Science Citation Indexed journals.Study selection Four cross-sectional studies and one case-control study were included where percentage levels of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (HSV1), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) were sampled for in both peri-implantitis affected and healthy implant sites, with the latter used as the control. Studies were excluded that investigated any other infective agent, had fewer than ten participants, was performed in vitro or involved subjects with only periodontal disease.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline process. Two examiners used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to determine overall study quality while the key information was extracted and tabulated for comparison. The data was analysed using Chi-squared test and I2 test for heterogenicity with a random effects or fixed affect models applied as appropriate. Risk difference of outcomes was displayed via a forest plot with 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were generated to evaluate publication bias.Results All four cross-sectional studies searched for EBV, while three also looked for CMV. The case-control study included investigated for HSV1 presence only. EBV presence in peri-implantitis sites was found to be statistically significant in three of the four studies despite obvious heterogeneity. CMV presence at peri-implantitis sites was statistically significant in all relevant studies, but the data displayed notable heterogeneity so as to render it insignificant. HSV1 exhibited similar percentage frequency in both healthy and diseased implant sites.Conclusions Virus prevalence was found to be increased in patients with peri-implantitis when compared to healthy sites but this assertion must be treated with caution as the data supporting it is weak due to the limited number of studies involved and the significant inherent heterogeneity they displayed.

WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I2 = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults.

BACKGROUND: Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists). SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I2 = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.

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.

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI). OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). SETTING: UK dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs). RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA. FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.