Investigating the effectiveness of water fluoridation.

DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used treatment claims data submitted over a 10-year period to explore the effect of water fluoridation on specified National Health Service (NHS) dental treatments, number of Decayed Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) and its cost-effectiveness. Ethical approval was granted and data was collected from NHS primary care settings via claims submitted to the NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA). To be included, participants must have attended dental services twice in the study period, been 12 years or over and had a valid English postcode. Those with claims related solely to orthodontic care were excluded, as were those who had requested NHS National Data Opt-out. Costs relating to water fluoridation were supplied by Public Health England. NHS BSA data was used to calculate NHS costs at 2020 prices. COHORT SELECTION: A personalised water fluoride exposure for the 2010-2020 period was assigned to all individuals, who were then split into two groups, above 0.7 mg F/L (optimally fluoridated group) or lower (non-optimally fluoridated group). Individuals in each group were matched for analysis using propensity scores, estimated via logistic regression. DATA ANALYSIS: Values of absolute standardised mean differences were used to determine covariate balance between the two groups, alongside a generalised linear model with matching weights and cluster robust standard errors and a patient deprivation decile as an interaction term. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated and differences in the overall costs to the public sector were illustrated by the return on investment estimate. RESULTS: The cohort contained data on 6,370,280 individuals. Negative binomial regression models were used to analyse health outcomes. In the optimally fluoridated group, the rate of invasive dental treatments was 3% less than in the non-optimally fluoridated group, and the mean DMFT in the optimally fluoridated group was 2% lower. There was no evidence of a difference in the predicted mean number of missing teeth between groups. There was a small reduction in the predicted number of invasive treatments in the optimally fluoridated group but the largest predicted reduction was in the most deprived decile. DMFT did not exhibit the expected social inequalities gradient, and for the mean number of missing teeth there were small differences in each decile of deprivation between groups but the direct effect was inconsistent. Water fluoridation expenditure between 2010 and 2019 was estimated to be £10.30 for those receiving optimally fluoridated water. The marginal effects estimate illustrated savings of £22.26 per person (95% CI - £21.43, -£23.09), which is a relative reduction in costs to the NHS of 5.5% per patient. A subsequent estimation of cost effectiveness calculated the cost of water fluoridation to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) as £94.55. The estimated return on investment using a variety of NHS dental attendance estimates all lead to a positive return. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that water fluoridation appears to be producing less impactful effects on oral health, with water fluoridation resulting in 'exceedingly small' health effects and very small reductions in use of NHS dental services. A positive return for the public sector was identified as the costs of NHS dentistry are high and costs of water fluoridation are low, though this study did not include the original set up costs of fluoridation programmes.

Do chewing gums and sweets containing xylitol prevent caries in children?

DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched in December 2022, and again for additional literature on 3-5th January 2023. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were hand searched for other eligible studies for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled clinical trials and controlled clinical trials conducted on children (aged ≤ 18 years), conducted between 1974-2022 and available in English, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded if caries was not an outcome, the control group was not sufficient, they were lab-based studies or studies where xylitol delivery was not a sweet or chewing gum and where the xylitol product contained a component such as fluoride which may influence the outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Four calibrated reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, and disagreements were resolved via group discussion. Preventative effect was determined by comparing the mean caries increment in the control and intervention groups, producing a preventative fraction. A total of 617 titles were initially screened for relevance. After duplicate removal, 268 abstracts were screened and 16 full text articles reviewed, with one more study then excluded. 10 studies investigated xylitol-containing chewing gum, and six looked at xylitol candy (one did both). Eight included studies were randomised controlled trials. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: 3466 participants were included in the 10 studies that investigated xylitol chewing gum, and all 10 studies reported a statistically significant preventive effect compared to a no chewing gum or placebo control. In 9 studies, the preventive fraction was clinically significant. The six studies investigating xylitol candies contained a total of 1023 participants, and only one study demonstrated a significant preventative effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that incorporating xylitol chewing gum daily has a caries-reducing effect in those with a moderate-to-high baseline caries level. This effect was not present for xylitol sweets.

Embedding environmental sustainability within oral health professional curricula-Recommendations for teaching and assessment of learning outcomes.

The FDI World Dental Federation suggests that "dentistry, as a profession, should integrate Sustainable Development Goals into daily practice and support a shift to a green economy in the pursuit of healthy lives and wellbeing for all, through all stages of life." This article reports on the recent activity of the Association for Dental Education in Europe Special Interest Group for Sustainability in Dentistry. Following on from the group's previous activities, which explored current educational practice, this work aimed to reach a pan-European consensus on a number of learning outcomes for environmental sustainability, in order to (i) support institutions in designing and delivering their curriculum, and (ii) to further harmonise the delivery of oral health professional education across Europe. This article presents specific learning outcomes relating to environmental sustainability and recommendations relating to curriculum development, including methods of teaching and assessment.

A review of HTM 01-05 through an environmentally sustainable lens.

Patients deserve to be treated in a safe and clean environment with consistent standards of care every time they receive treatment. It is essential that the risk of person-to-person transmission of infections be minimised, yet it is also essential that planetary harm (and therefore public harm) is minimised with respect to resource consumption, air pollution, environmental degradation etc.In 2013, the Department of Health introduced the Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) 01-05 providing dental practices with advice on patient safety when decontaminating reusable instruments in primary care. This paper provides a commentary on HTM 01-05 and similar decontamination guidance. We believe all decontamination documents needs to reflect the so-called 'triple bottom line' - the finance, social cost and impact on the planet.The authors provide an environmental commentary on a number of items mentioned in decontamination documents, including autoclaves (including the use of helix tests), disposable paper towels, undertaking hand hygiene, using a log book, plastic bag use, the use of personal protective equipment, remote decontamination units, single use instruments, single use wipes, disinfection chemicals (for example, sodium hypochlorite) thermal disinfection and wrapping of instruments.It is hoped, in the spirit of the ever-increasing numbers of papers published to highlight how healthcare (and dentistry) could become more sustainable, that these critiques will be taken in the spirit of providing a beginning of further discussion from an environmental perspective.

Exploring environmental sustainability in UK and US dental curricula and related barriers and enablers: a cross-sectional survey in two dental schools.

Introduction Very little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of dental students and educators regarding environmental sustainability in dentistry (ESD), the presence of ESD in dental curricula, and barriers and enablers to embracing ESD in dental education.Methods A cross-sectional survey using piloted online questionnaires for students and educators was carried out at the Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London and at Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.Results ESD does not exist formally in the dental curricula at either institution. Despite poor knowledge, students and educators had very positive attitudes to embracing ESD in the curricula. The most noted barriers were lack of knowledge about ESD, lack of time for preparing ESD content, lack of ESD educational materials and infection control regulations. Enablers included embedding ESD in UK and US dental education standards, having institutional backing and support in terms of providing training, educational materials, capacity and incentives, as well as adopting a critical evidence-informed approach in reforming current infection control regulations.Conclusions Dental education and infection control regulatory bodies, as well as dental institutions, can embed ESD in UK and US dental curricula by supporting the implementation of identified enablers.

Embedding environmental sustainability within the modern dental curriculum- Exploring current practice and developing a shared understanding.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence concerning the interactions between human health and planetary health has grown extensively in recent years. In turn, the perceived importance of environmental sustainability within higher education is growing at a rapid rate. This paper provides a summary of key elements as they apply to dentistry, and provides an introduction to the reader of an early consensus of how sustainability could be included as part of the dental curriculum. METHODS: The consensus opinion within this paper largely centres around discussion at the ADEE sustainability workshop at the annual conference in Berlin (August 2019). In order to help inform discussions at the workshop, a brief scoping questionnaire was circulated to potential participants regarding their understanding and current teaching practices in sustainability. An infographic was designed to help delegates remember the important elements of sustainable dentistry. Delegates discussed the concept of sustainability alongside the infographic, and how they could link these with the Graduating European Dentist (GED) curriculum. RESULTS: The discussions within the workshop largely centred around 4 main themes: Disease prevention and health promotion, Patient education and empowerment, Lean service delivery and Preferential use of strategies with lower environmental impact. DISCUSSION: It is apparent that there is a widespread need for teaching materials relating to environmental sustainability; this includes specific learning outcomes relating to the 4 educational domains of the Graduating European Dentist curriculum, and methods for teaching and assessing these outcomes. CONCLUSION: This paper reports consensus on the first phase of a pan-European working group on Sustainability in dental education.

Environmental sustainability: measuring and embedding sustainable practice into the dental practice.

This final paper within the sustainability series focuses on creating a framework for embedding sustainability within a dental practice and builds upon sustainability principles and practices explored in the preceding papers. The dental practice could be a high street dental practice, a community setting or a trust.

Environmental sustainability and biodiversity within the dental practice.

This paper forms part of a series of papers, seven in total, which have been requested by colleagues to help them as clinicians understand sustainability as it relates to dentistry. This paper focuses on biodiversity and how the dental team can become more sustainable. It is hoped that these series of papers stimulate interest, debate and discussion and, ultimately, influence dentistry to become more environmentally sustainable.

Environmental sustainability and travel within the dental practice.

A significant amount of dentistry's carbon emissions originate from travel (64.5%). Dental-associated travel affects air quality, releasing over 443 tonnes of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 22 tonnes of particulate matter (PM2.5) annually. This reduction in air quality reduces over 325 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) per year. Wider health impacts associated with noise and traffic incidents doubles the impact on health in QALYs. Dental procedures that require shorter appointment times have disproportionately higher emissions due to patient travel. The dental team can reduce appointment times by combining visits for family members or combining operative procedures, or reducing appointment frequency based on patient risk. Community oral health programmes and preventive programmes reduce travel emissions. The number of physical dental appointments can be reduced using information technology such as global positioning systems (GPS), telemedicine and teleconferencing. The mode of travel is important, with the air and carbon emissions generated by active travel negligent compared to a private car. Travel plans can help encourage active travel, as can flexible working hours, cycle to work schemes, cycle racks and shower facilities. Practices should consider purchasing locally sourced or sustainably transported goods and, ideally, use local dental laboratories.

Environmental sustainability and waste within the dental practice.

This paper forms part of a series of papers, seven in total, which have been requested by colleagues to help them as clinicians understand sustainability as it relates to dentistry. This paper focuses on waste and how the dental team can influence how waste is processed and disposed of. It is the authors' hope that this series of papers stimulates interest, debate and discussion and, as well as being economically responsible, ultimately motivates and inspires the dental team to be more socially and environmentally sustainable which in turn will help promote health and illness prevention.

Environmentally sustainable dentistry: energy use within the dental practice.

This paper forms part of a series of papers, seven in total, which have been requested by a number of colleagues to help them understand sustainability as it relates to dentistry. This paper focuses on energy and how the dental team can influence the amount and type of energy it uses, in order to become more sustainable. It is the authors' hope that this series of papers stimulates interest, debate and discussion and that, as well as being economically responsible, ultimately motivates and inspires dental practices to be more socially and environmentally sustainable; which will in turn help promote health and illness prevention.

Environmental sustainability and procurement: purchasing products for the dental setting.

Sustainable procurement, when applied to dentistry, is the practice by which the dental surgery addresses environmental, social and ethical considerations when purchasing goods or services. This paper focuses on procurement and how the dental team can influence what is purchased in order to become more sustainable. It is the authors' hope that this series of papers will stimulate interest, debate and discussion and, as well as being economically responsible, ultimately motivate or inspire dentistry to be more socially and environmentally sustainable which in turn will help promote health and illness prevention.

Environmentally sustainable dentistry: a brief introduction to sustainable concepts within the dental practice.

This paper introduces clinicians to sustainability as it relates to dentistry. There are seven papers in the series. These include this introduction, followed by papers on energy, procurement, travel, waste, biodiversity and engagement and embedding sustainability into current dental practice. A sustainable world aims to ensure the basic needs and quality of life of everyone are met, now and for future generations. The current delivery of healthcare in the modern world is not sustainable due to rising financial costs, increasing demands and a high environmental burden. Dentists, like their medical counterparts, need to consider the General Dental Council (GDC) standards and the relationship between planetary health and human health within their practice. There is increasing awareness of the problems associated with global warming but a lack of knowledge on how to become more environmentally sustainable. There are also financial and reputational benefits to becoming more sustainable for practices. The carbon footprint is one proxy of sustainability and is closely related to expenditure. In 2014-2015, the carbon footprint of dentistry was calculated to be 675 kilotonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) with 64.5% related to travel, 15.3% from energy and 19% from procurement. The GDC should consider incorporating sustainability education into the undergraduate framework in line with student demands and similar moves by the General Medical Council.

Systemic antibiotics for treating malignant wounds.

BACKGROUND: Malignant wounds are a devastating complication of cancer. They usually develop in the last six months of life, in the breast, chest wall or head and neck regions. They are very difficult to treat successfully, and the commonly associated symptoms of pain, exudate, malodour, and the risk of haemorrhage are extremely distressing for those with advanced cancer. Treatment and care of malignant wounds is primarily palliative, and focuses on alleviating pain, controlling infection and odour from the wound, managing exudate and protecting the surrounding skin from further deterioration. In malignant wounds, with tissue degradation and death, there is proliferation of both anaerobic and aerobic bacteria. The aim of antibiotic therapy is to successfully eliminate these bacteria, reduce associated symptoms, such as odour, and promote wound healing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for treating malignant wounds. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 8 March 2017: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched the clinical trial registries of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 20 March 2017; and OpenSIGLE (to identify grey literature) and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (to retrieve dissertation theses related to our topic of interest) on 13 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of any systemic antibiotics on malignant wounds were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted study data. A third reviewer checked extracted data for accuracy prior to analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one study for inclusion in this review. This study was a prospective, double-blind cross-over trial that compared the effect of systemic metronidazole with a placebo on odour in malignant wounds. Nine participants with a fungating wound and for whom the smell was troublesome were recruited and six of these completed both the intervention and control (placebo) stages of the trial. Each stage lasted fourteen days, with a fourteen day gap (washout period) between administration of the metronidazole and the placebo.The study, in comparing metronidazole and placebo, reported on two of this review's pre-specified primary outcomes (malodour and adverse effects of the treatment) and on none of the review's pre-specified secondary outcomes.MalodourThe mean malodour (smell) scores for the metronidazole group was 1.17 (standard deviation (SD) 1.60) and the mean for the placebo group was 3.33 (SD 0.82). It is unclear if systemic antibiotics were associated with a difference in malodour (1 study with 6 participants; MD -2.16, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.72) as the quality of the evidence (GRADE) was very low for this outcome. The study was downgraded due to high risk of attrition bias (33% loss to follow-up) and very serious imprecision due to the small sample size.Adverse effectsNo adverse effects of the treatment were reported in either the intervention or control group by the trial authors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether systemic metronidazole leads to a reduction in malodour in patients with malignant wounds. This is because we were only able to include a single study at high risk of bias with a very small sample size, which focused only on patients with breast cancer. More research is needed to substantiate these findings and to investigate the effects of systemic metronidazole and other antibiotics on quality of life, pain relief, exudate and tumour containment in patients with malignant wounds.