A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum in Dental Caries.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in level of dental caries in adults and children who chew sugar-free gum (SFG), compared with those who do not chew SFG or use alternatives such as lozenges, candies, rinses, tablets, and other nonchewing controls. METHODS: Systematic review of published literature. RESULTS: Twelve studies of interventions of SFG for dental caries outcomes were included. SFGs were found to significantly reduce caries increment, giving a preventative fraction (PF) of 28% (95% CI, 7% to 48%). Including the 8 trials that used xylitol gum only as the basis of the intervention, the PF was 33% (95% CI, 4% to 61%). No adverse effects were recorded. There was a high level of heterogeneity among the trials included. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review provide tentative evidence that chewing SFG reduces caries increment in comparison to nonchewing controls. However, there is a considerable degree of variability in the effect and the trials included were generally of moderate quality. There is a need for future research to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the use of SFG as a public health intervention (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018094676). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results of this study can be used by clinicians when deciding how best to implement dental caries prevention regimes for their patients. With consideration of cost and patient preference, this information could help to develop national policy directives on caries prevention and dictate the direction of future clinical research.

Oral surgery in the European Union: challenges of diversity in training and practice.

INTRODUCTION: At the crossroads of medicine and dentistry, oral surgery with orthodontics are the only recognised dental specialties by the European Union. The goal of our study is to evaluate the current state of oral surgery in Europe from its teaching to its practice, the hypothesis being that a notable diversity persists despite European Union harmonisation process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To understand the impact of this diversity applied to European Union freedom of movement and its ethical implications for the practice of oral surgery, English and French questionnaires were sent by email to universities and organisations delivering authorisation to practise in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom chosen based upon inclusion and exclusion criteria. An analysis of documents on these organisations' official websites was also conducted. Demographic information was obtained from the aforementioned organisations. RESULTS: The profile of practising oral surgeons is different dependent on the country. The university and hospital trainings conform to European recommendations and span 3-4 years. European Board certification is not required. Continuing education is mandatory only in France, Germany and United Kingdom. As for curricula and scope of practice, no consensus can be derived. DISCUSSION: There is potential conflict of interest between European Union principles of freedom of movement and protection of all citizens, as member countries do not uniformly apply Directives and recommendations. A new survey of all European Union oral surgery programmes as well as organisations delivering authorisation to practise is necessary to implement across the board harmonisation of training and practice to insure patient safety in light of the migration of European Union practitioners.