Oral health behaviours of parents and young children in a practice-based caries prevention trial in Northern Ireland

OBJECTIVES

The NICPIP trial evaluated the costs and effects of a caries prevention intervention delivered to 2- to 3-year-old children attending dental practices in Northern Ireland. This supplementary study explored the oral health behaviours of children and their parents to help understand the reasons for the trial's findings.

METHODS

A mixed methods study that included a questionnaire completed by all parents (n = 1058) at the time they brought their child for the NICPIP final clinical assessment. The questionnaire collected data on frequency of toothbrushing and sugar consumption. Questionnaire data were analysed by trial group and caries status. Parents of trial participants (n = 42) were invited to take part in telephone interviews. Parents were purposively sampled according to trial group and whether or not their child developed caries. The interviews explored how and why oral health behaviours happened. Interview data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The questionnaire data indicated that toothbrushing and between-meal sugar snacking were common in the majority of children. The children of parents who automatically reminded their child to brush their teeth were more likely to remain caries-free (Odds Ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.08, 1.41; P = .002). Frequency of sweet drink consumption was associated with the child developing caries (Odds Ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.79, 0.98; P = .021). The interview data showed that parents had positive attitudes towards brushing both in terms of perceived importance and expected outcomes. Attitudes towards sugar snacking were more complex, with parents reporting difficulties in controlling this behaviour. Sugar was described as being something that was "ever present" in children's lives.

CONCLUSIONS

Toothbrushing was widely adopted from a young age, but between-meal sugar consumption was highly prevalent. The results suggest that effective family-level and population-level interventions are needed to reduce sugar consumption if substantial improvements in caries prevention are to be achieved.

Socioeconomic disparities in orthodontic treatment outcomes and expenditure on orthodontics in England's state-funded National Health Service: a retrospective observational study

Background

This study aimed to assess whether there are potential areas for efficiency improvements in the National Health Service (NHS) orthodontic service in North West England and to assess the socioeconomic status (SES)-related equity of the outcomes achieved by the NHS.

Methods

The study involved a retrospective analysis of 2008–2012 administrative data, and the study population comprised patients aged ≥10 who started NHS primary care orthodontic treatment in North West England in 2008. The proportions of treatments that were discontinued early and ended with residual need (based on post-treatment Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need [IOTN] scores that met or exceeded the NHS eligibility threshold of 3.6) and the associated NHS expenditure were calculated. In addition, the associations with SES were investigated using linear probability models.

Results

We found that 7.6% of treatments resulted in discontinuation (which was associated with an NHS annual expenditure of £2.3 m), and a further 19.4% (£5.9 m) had a missing outcome record. Furthermore, 5.2% of treatments resulted in residual need (£1.6 m), and a further 38.3% (£11.6 m) had missing IOTN data (due to either a missing outcome record or an incomplete IOTN outcome field in the record), which led to an annual NHS expenditure of £13.2 m (44% of the total expenditure) on treatments that are a potential source of inefficiency. Compared to the patients in the highest SES group, those in the lower SES groups were more likely both to discontinue treatment and to have residual need on treatment completion.

Conclusions

Substantial inefficiencies were evident in the NHS orthodontic service, with 7.6% of treatments ending in discontinuation (£2.3 m) and 5.2% ending with residual need (£1.6 m). Over a third of cases had unreported IOTN outcome scores, which highlights the need to improve the outcome monitoring systems. In addition, the SES gradients indicate inequity in the orthodontic outcomes, with children from disadvantaged communities having poorer outcomes compared to their more affluent peers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-017-0414-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Productive efficiency and its determinants in the Community Dental Service in the north-west of England

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency of service provision in the Community Dental Services and its determinants in the North-West of England.

SETTING AND SAMPLE

40 Community Dental Services sites operating across the North-West of England.

BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN

A data envelopment analysis was undertaken of inputs (number of surgeries, hours worked by dental officers, therapists, hygienists and others) and outputs (treatments delivered, number of courses of treatment and patients seen) of the Community Dental Services to produce relative efficiency ratings by health authority. These were further analyzed in order to identify which inputs (determined within the Community Dental Services) or external factors outside the control of the Community Dental Services are associated with efficiency.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Relative efficiency rankings in Community Dental Services production of dental healthcare.

RESULTS

Using the quantity of treatments delivered as the measure of output, on average the Community Dental Services in England is operating at a relative efficiency of 85% (95% confidence interval 77%- 99%) compared to the best performing services. Average efficiency is lower when courses of treatment and unique patients seen are used as output measures, 82% and 68% respectively. Neither the input mix nor the patient case mix explained variations in the efficiency across Community Dental Services.

CONCLUSIONS

Although large variations in performance exist across Community Dental Services, the data available was not able to explain these variations. A useful next step would be to undertake detailed case studies of several best and under-performing services to explore the factors that influence relative performance levels.

Cost-Effectiveness of Caries Prevention in Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial

A 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial measured the cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in caries-free children aged 2 to 3 y attending general practice. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland. Participants were centrally randomized into intervention (22,600 ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, a 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized prevention advice) and control (advice only), both provided at 6-monthly intervals during a 3-y follow-up. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states assessed by calibrated and blinded examiners; secondary outcome measures included decayed, missing, or filled teeth surfaces (dmfs); pain; and extraction. Cumulative costs were related to each of the trial’s outcomes in a series of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses examined the impact of using dentist’s time as measured by observation rather than that reported by the dentist. The costs of applying topical fluoride were also estimated assuming the work was undertaken by dental nurses or hygienists rather than dentists. A total of 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. The mean difference in direct health care costs between groups was £107.53 (£155.74 intervention, £48.21 control, P < 0.05) per child. When all health care costs were compared, the intervention group’s mean cost was £212.56 more than the control group (£987.53 intervention, £774.97 control, P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences in outcomes were only detected with respect to carious surfaces. The mean cost per carious surface avoided was estimated at £251 (95% confidence interval, £454.39–£79.52). Sensitivity analyses did not materially affect the study’s findings. This trial raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of a fluoride-based intervention delivered at the practice level in the context of a state-funded dental service (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119).

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Caries Prevention in Dental Practice

We conducted a parallel group randomized controlled trial of children initially aged 2 to 3 y who were caries free, to prevent the children becoming caries active over the subsequent 36 mo. The setting was 22 dental practices in Northern Ireland, and children were randomly assigned by a clinical trials unit (CTU) (using computer-generated random numbers, with allocation concealed from the dental practice until each child was recruited) to the intervention (22,600-ppm fluoride varnish, toothbrush, 50-mL tube of 1,450 ppm fluoride toothpaste, and standardized, evidence-based prevention advice) or advice-only control at 6-monthly intervals. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (dmfs) in caries-active children, number of episodes of pain, and number of extracted teeth. Adverse reactions were recorded. Calibrated external examiners, blinded to the child's study group, assessed the status of the children at baseline and after 3 y. In total, 1,248 children (624 randomized to each group) were recruited, and 1,096 (549 intervention, 547 control) were included in the final analyses. Eighty-seven percent of intervention and 86% of control children attended every 6-mo visit ( P = 0.77). A total of 187 (34%) in the intervention group converted to caries active compared to 213 (39%) in the control group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.04; P = 0.11). Mean dmfs of those with caries in the intervention group was 7.2 compared to 9.6 in the control group ( P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups ( P = 0.81) or in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children ( P = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had adverse reactions of a minor nature. This well-conducted trial failed to demonstrate that the intervention kept children caries free, but there was evidence that once children get caries, it slowed down its progression (EudraCT No: 2009-010725-39; ISRCTN: ISRCTN36180119).

Does capitation affect the delivery of oral healthcare and access to services? Evidence from a pilot contact in Northern Ireland

Background

In May 2009, the Northern Ireland government introduced General Dental Services (GDS) contracts based on capitation in dental practices newly set up by a corporate dental provider to promote access to dental care in populations that had previously struggled to secure service provision. Dental service provision forms an important component of general health services for the population, but the implications of health system financing on care delivered and the financial cost of services has received relatively little attention in the research literature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the policy effect capitation payment in recently started corporate practices had on the delivery of primary oral healthcare in Northern Ireland and access to services.

Methods

We analysed the policy initiative in Northern Ireland as a natural experiment to find the impact on healthcare delivery of the newly set up corporate practices that use a prospective capitation system to remunerate primary care dentists. Data was collected from GDS claim forms submitted to the Business Services Organisation (BSO) between April 2011 and October 2014. Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) practices operating within a capitation system were matched to a control group, who were remunerated using a retrospective fee-for-service system.

Results

No evidence of patient selection was found in the HSCB practices set up by a corporate provider and operated under capitation. However, patients were less likely to visit the dentist and received less treatment when they did attend, compared to those belonging to the control group (P < 0.05). The extent of preventive activity offered and the patient payment charge revenue did not differ between the two practice groups.

Conclusion

Although remunerating NHS primary care dentists in newly set up corporate practices using a prospective capitation system managed costs within healthcare, there is evidence that this policy may have reduced access to care of registered patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2117-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Longitudinal Study of Caries Development from Childhood to Adolescence

The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that globally, dental caries is the most important oral condition. To develop effective prevention strategies requires an understanding of how this condition develops and progresses over time, but there are few longitudinal studies of caries onset and progression in children. The aim of the study was to establish the pattern of caries development from childhood into adolescence and to explore the role of potential risk factors (age, sex, ethnicity, and social deprivation). Of particular interest was the disease trajectory of dentinal caries in the permanent teeth in groups defined by the presence or absence of dentinal caries in the primary teeth. Intraoral examinations to assess oral health were performed at 4 time points by trained and calibrated dentist examiners using a standardized, national diagnostic protocol. Clinical data were available from 6,651 children. Mean caries prevalence (% D₃MFT > 0) was 16.7% at the first clinical examination (ages 7-9 y), increasing to 31.0%, 42.2%, and 45.7% at subsequent examinations. A population-averaged model (generalized estimating equations) was used to model the longitudinal data. Estimated mean values indicated a rising D₃MFT count as pupils aged (consistent with new teeth emerging), which was significantly higher (4.49 times; 95% confidence interval, 3.90-5.16) in those pupils with caries in their primary dentition than in those without. This study is one of the few large longitudinal studies to report the development of dental caries from childhood into adolescence. Children who developed caries in their primary dentition had a very different caries trajectory in their permanent dentition compared to their caries-free contemporaries. In light of these results, caries-free and caries-active children should be considered as 2 separate populations, suggesting different prevention strategies are required to address their different risk profiles.

The technical efficiency of oral healthcare provision: Evaluating role substitution in National Health Service dental practices in England

OBJECTIVES

In many countries increasing use is being made of dental care professionals (DCPs) to provide aspects of clinical activity previously undertaken by dentists. This study evaluates the differences in practice efficiency associated with the utilisation of DCPs in the provision of General Dental Services in the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-one NHS practices completed a questionnaire and shared practice information held at the NHS Business Services Authority. Practice efficiency was estimated using data envelopment analysis with the robustness of the findings checked using Stochastic Frontier Model estimation.

RESULTS

Dental practices operated at an estimated mean level of technical efficiency of 64%. Variations among practices in the use of DCPs were not associated with variations in practice efficiency after controlling for other staffing levels, patient population characteristics and practice variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The current NHS dental contract limits the potential for efficiency improvements by setting annual practice activity targets that produce little incentive for role substitution. Whilst DCPs may by practising efficiently, this is not reflected in practice-level efficiency, possibly because of dentists using the time released for other non-NHS activity.

A pilot randomised controlled trial evaluating mini and conventional implant retained dentures on the function and quality of life of patients with an edentulous mandible

BACKGROUND

Total tooth loss (edentulism) can be a debilitating condition, impacting on ability to chew, speak and interact with others. The most common treatment is with complete removable dentures, which may be successful, but in the lower jaw, bone resorption that worsens over time makes denture-wearing difficult. Two dental implants in the mandible to retain the lower denture has been advocated as the gold standard of treatment, but has not been universally provided due largely to financial constraints and also patient fear. Mini implants (MI) are cheaper and less invasive than conventional implants (CI), but may not have equivalent longevity. Therefore, it is unknown whether they represent a cost-effective treatment modality over time. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial was to assess the feasibility of carrying out a trial on this cohort of patients, and to inform the study design of a large multicentre trial.

METHODS

Forty-six patients were randomly allocated to receive either two mini implants or two conventional implants in the mandible to retain their lower dentures. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, pain and anxiety scores, and an objective "gummy jelly" chewing test were carried out at multiple timepoints, along with detailed health economics information. Implants were placed one-stage, and an early loading protocol was utilised. Patients were reviewed 8 weeks post-placement, and finally at 6 months. Implant failure, recruitment and retention rates were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

The pilot study demonstrated that it is possible to recruit, randomise and retain edentulous (mainly elderly) patients for an implant trial. We recruited to target and retention rates were acceptable. The large number of questionnaires was onerous for participants to complete, but the distribution of scores and feedback from participants helped inform the choice of primary and secondary outcomes in a full trial. The chewing test was time-consuming and inconsistent. Implant failure rate was low (1/46). The data on indirect costs gathered at every visit was viewed as repetitive and unnecessary, as there was little or no change between visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot study has shown that acceptable recruitment and retention rates are achievable in this population of patients for this intervention. The results provide valuable information for selection of outcome variables and sample size calculations for future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(ISRCTN): 87342238 Trial registration date: 05/07/2013.

Determining the optimal model for role substitution in NHS dental services in the UK: a mixed-methods study

Background

Maximising health gain for a given level and mix of resources is an ethical imperative for health-service planners. Approximately half of all patients who attend a regular NHS dental check-up do not require any further treatment, whereas many in the population do not regularly attend. Thus, the most expensive resource (the dentist) is seeing healthy patients at a time when many of those with disease do not access care. Role substitution in NHS dentistry, where other members of the dental team undertake the clinical tasks previously provided by dentists, has the potential to increase efficiency and the capacity to care and lower costs. However, no studies have empirically investigated the efficiency of NHS dental provision that makes use of role substitution.

Research questions

This programme of research sought to address three research questions: (1) what is the efficiency of NHS dental teams that make use of role substitution?; (2) what are the barriers to, and facilitators of, role substitution in NHS dental practices?; and (3) how do incentives in the remuneration systems influence the organisation of these inputs and production of outputs in the NHS?

Design

Data envelopment analysis was used to develop a productive efficiency frontier for participating NHS practices, which were then compared on a relative basis, after controlling for patient and practice characteristics. External validity was tested using stochastic frontier modelling, while semistructured interviews explored the views of participating dental teams and their patients to role substitution.

Setting

NHS ‘high-street’ general dental practices.

Participants

121 practices across the north of England.

Interventions

No active interventions were undertaken.

Main outcome measures

Relative efficiency of participating NHS practices, alongside a detailed narrative of their views about role substitution dentistry. Social acceptability for patients.

Results

The utilisation of non-dentist roles in NHS practices was relatively low, the most common role type being the dental hygienist. Increasing the number of non-dentist team members reduced efficiency. However, it was not possible to determine the relative efficiency of individual team members, as the NHS contracts only with dentists. Financial incentives in the NHS dental contract and the views of practice principals (i.e. senior staff members) were equally important. Bespoke payment and referral systems were required to make role substitution economically viable. Many non-dentist team members were not being used to their full scope of practice and constraints on their ability to prescribe reduced efficiency further. Many non-dentist team members experienced a precarious existence, commonly being employed at multiple practices. Patients had a low level of awareness of the different non-dentist roles in a dental team. Many exhibited an inherent trust in the professional ‘system’, but prior experience of role substitution was important for social acceptability.

Conclusions

Better alignment between the financial incentives within the NHS dental contract and the use of role substitution is required, although professional acceptability remains critical.

Study limitations

Output data collected did not reflect the quality of care provided by the dental team and the input data were self-reported.

Future work

Further work is required to improve the evidence base for the use of role substitution in NHS dentistry, exploring the effects and costs of provision.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The CATFISH study protocol: an evaluation of a water fluoridation scheme

Background

Tooth decay is the commonest disease of childhood. We have known for over 90 years that fluoride can prevent tooth decay; it is present in nearly all toothpastes and can be provided in mouthwashes, gels and varnishes. The oldest method of applying fluoride is via the water supply at a concentration of 1 part per million. The two most important reviews of water fluoridation in the United Kingdom (the York Review and MRC Report on water fluoridation and health) concluded that whilst there was evidence to suggest water fluoridation provided a benefit in caries reduction, there was a need to improve the evidence base in several areas.

Methods/Design

This study will use a natural experiment to assess the incidence of caries in two geographical areas, one in which the water supply is returned to being fluoridated following a discontinuation of fluoridation and one that continues to have a non-fluoridated water supply. The oral health of two discrete study populations will be evaluated - those born 9 months after the water fluoridation was introduced, and those who were in their 1st year of school after the introduction of fluoridated water. Both populations will be followed prospectively for 5 years using a census approach in the exposed group along with matched numbers recruitment in a non-exposed control. Parents of the younger cohort will complete questionnaires every 6 months with child clinical examination at ages 3 and 5, whilst the older cohort will have clinical examinations only, at approximately 5, 7 and 11 years old.

Discussion

This project provides a unique opportunity to conduct a high quality evaluation of the reintroduction of a water fluoridation scheme, which satisfies the inclusion criteria stipulated by the York systematic review and can address the design issues identified in the MRC report. The research will make a major contribution to the understanding of the costs and effects of water fluoridation in the UK in the 21st Century. Its findings will help inform UK policy on this important public health intervention and may have a significant impact on public health policy in other developed countries. There is currently true equipoise in relation to the effectiveness of water fluoridation in contemporary populations and while the biological plausibility is well established, there is a need to examine impact on the changing epidemiological status of dental decay.

Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry

Background

The concept of patient safety in dentistry is in its infancy, with little knowledge about the effectiveness of tools or interventions developed to improve patient safety or to minimise the occurrence of adverse events.

Methods

The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to search the academic and grey literature to identify and assess tools or interventions used in dental care settings to maintain or improve patient safety. All study designs were included from all dental care settings. Outcome measures were: patient safety, harm prevention, risk minimization, patient satisfaction and patient acceptability, professional acceptability, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Quality assessments were performed on the included studies based on CASP tools. Further analysis was undertaken to discover whether any of the tools had been trialled or verified by the authors, or by subsequent authors.

Results

Following abstract screening, and initial qualitative synthesis, nine studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria with 31 being excluded following initial analysis. Tools identified included: checklists (4 studies), reporting systems (3), the use of electronic notes (1) and trigger tools (1). Grey literature searching did not identify any further appropriate studies. In terms of study design, there were observational studies including audit cycles (5 studies), epidemiological studies (3) and prospective cluster randomised clinical trials (1). The quality of the studies varied and none of their outcomes were verified by other researchers. The tools identified have the potential to be used for measuring and improving patient safety in dentistry, with two surgical safety checklists demonstrating a reduction in erroneous dental extractions to nil following their introduction. Reporting systems provide epidemiological data, however, it is not known whether they lead to any improvement in patient safety. The one study on trigger tools demonstrates a 50 % positive predictive value for safety incidents. It is not clear as to what impact the introduction of electronic guidelines has on patient safety outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review finds that the only interventions in dentistry that reduce or minimise adverse events are surgical safety checklists. We believe this to be the first systematic review in this field; it demonstrates the need for further research into patient safety in dentistry across several domains: epidemiological, conceptual understanding and patient and practitioner involvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0136-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A national survey of the public's views on quality in dental care

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence and poor understanding of quality measurement and improvement in dentistry. The aim of this study was to undertake a nationally representative survey of the public in England to explore their views on the meaning of quality in dentistry.

METHODS

A cross sectional survey of the adult population (18 years and over) of England was undertaken. A sample size of 500 was set to provide a precision to plus or minus 5% after allowing for item non-response. A quota sampling approach was used, with predetermined quotas set for sex, age, working status and tenure to ensure the sample was nationally representative. Question selection and design were informed by the literature and a series of interviews with the public. Simple content analysis was used to identify themes in the responses to open questions. Dental service use, gender, age, ethnicity and social class were recorded. Frequency distributions were computed and outputs were cross-tabulated with various population sub-group categories.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirteen people were interviewed. Approximately 20% of patients reported that their care was suboptimal; a third thought it was poor value for money and 20% did not trust their dentist. Good interpersonal communication, politeness and being put at ease were the most important factors that elicited positive responses. Negative factors were cost of care and waiting times. In making an assessment of quality, access (40% of all responses), technical quality of care (35%), professionalism (30%), hygiene/cleanliness (30%), staff attitude (27%), pain-free treatment (23%), value for money (22%), and staff putting patients at ease (21%) all emerged as important factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality in dentistry is multi-dimensional in nature, and includes different elements and emphases to other areas of healthcare. The results will inform the development of a measure of quality in dentistry.

The efficacy of screening for common dental diseases by hygiene-therapists: a diagnostic test accuracy study

Regularly attending adult patients are increasingly asymptomatic and not in need of treatment when attending for their routine dental examinations. As oral health improves further, using the general dental practitioner to undertake the "checkup" on regular "low-risk" patients represents a substantial and potentially unnecessary cost for state-funded systems. Given recent regulatory changes in the United Kingdom, it is now theoretically possible to delegate a range of tasks to hygiene-therapists. This has the potential to release the general dental practitioner's time and increase the capacity to care. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of hygiene-therapists when screening for dental caries and periodontal disease in regularly attending asymptomatic adults who attend for their checkup. A visual screen by hygiene-therapists acted as the index test, and the general dental practitioner acted as the reference standard. Consenting asymptomatic adult patients, who were regularly attending patients at 10 practices across the Northwest of England, entered the study. Both sets of clinicians made an assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease. The primary outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity values for dental caries and periodontal disease. In total, 1899 patients were screened. The summary point for sensitivity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.87) and 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), respectively. The summary point for specificity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.87 (0.78 to 0.92) and 0.75 (0.66 to 0.82), respectively. The results suggest that hygiene-therapists could be used to screen for dental caries and periodontal disease. This has important ramifications for service design in public-funded health systems.

Dental auxiliaries for dental care traditionally provided by dentists

BACKGROUND

Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from their inception dates up to November 2013: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. We also undertook a grey literature search and searched the reference list of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in undertaking clinical tasks traditionally performed by a dentist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study and two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence from the included studies, according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we gave a narrative description of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore.Of the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001).One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.All studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite

BACKGROUND

Composite filling materials have been increasingly used for the restoration of posterior teeth in recent years as a tooth-coloured alternative to amalgam. As with any filling material composites have a finite life-span. Traditionally, replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective composite restorations, however, repairing composites offers an alternative more conservative approach to the tooth structure where restorations are partly still serviceable. Repairing the restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of replacing (with resin composite) versus repair (with resin composite) in the management of defective resin composite dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 24 July 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 24 July 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 24 July 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 24 July 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 24 July 2013); and OpenGrey (to 24 July 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of resin composite restorations in adults with a defective molar restoration in a permanent molar or premolar teeth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy retrieved 298 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved but none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, anxiety and distress, time and costs.

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam

BACKGROUND

Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of replacing (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 August 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 August 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 5 August 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 5 August 2013) and OpenGrey (to 5 August 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations in adults with a defective restoration in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy retrieved 201 potentially eligible studies after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of the relevant studies were retrieved but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.

The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists

BACKGROUND

Methods of remuneration have been linked with the professional behaviour of primary care physicians. In dentistry, this can be exacerbated as clinicians operate their practices as businesses and take the full financial risk of the provision of services. The main methods for remunerating primary care dentists include fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. The aim of this review was to determine the impact that these remuneration mechanisms have upon primary care dentists' behaviour.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different methods of remuneration on the level and mix of activities provided by primary care dentists and the impact this has on patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2013); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1947 to 11 June 2013); EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 11 June 2013); EconLit (1969 to 11 June 2013); the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) (11 June 2013); and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED) (11 June 2013). We conducted cited reference searches for the included studies in ISI Web of Knowledge; searched grey literature sources; handsearched selected journals; and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Primary care dentists were defined as clinicians that deliver routine or mainstream dental care in a primary care environment. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. The methods of remuneration that we considered were: fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. Primary outcome measures were: measures of clinical activity; volume of clinical activity undertaken; time taken and clinical session length, or both; clinician type utilised; measures of health service utilisation; access and attendance as a proportion of the population; re-attendance rates; recall frequency; levels of oral health inequalities; non-attendance rates; healthcare costs; measures of patient outcomes; disease reduction; health maintenance; and patient satisfaction. We also considered measures of practice profitability/income and any reported unintended effects of the included methods of remuneration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three of the review authors (PRB, JP, AMG) independently reviewed titles and abstracts and resolved disagreements by discussion. The same three review authors undertook data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence from all the studies that met the selection criteria, according to Cochrane Collaboration procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Two cluster-RCTs, with data from 503 dental practices, representing 821 dentists and 4771 patients, met the selection criteria. We judged the risk of bias to be high for both studies and the overall quality of the evidence was low/very low for all outcomes, as assessed using the GRADE approach.One study used a factorial design to investigate the impact of fee-for-service and an educational intervention on the placement of fissure sealants in permanent molar teeth. The authors reported a statistically significant increase in clinical activity in the arm that was incentivised with a fee-for-service payment. However, the study was conducted in the four most deprived areas of Scotland, so the applicability of the findings to other settings may be limited. The study did not report data on measures of health service utilisation or measures of patient outcomes.The second study used a parallel group design undertaken over a three-year period to compare the impact of capitation payments with fee-for-service payments on primary care dentists' clinical activity. The study reported on measures of clinical activity (mean percentage of children receiving active preventive advice, health service utilisation (mean number of visits), patient outcomes (mean number of filled teeth, mean percentage of children having one or more teeth extracted and the mean number of decayed teeth) and healthcare costs (mean expenditure). Teeth were restored at a later stage in the disease process in the capitation system and the clinicians tended to see their patients less frequently and tended to carry out fewer fillings and extractions, but also tended to give more preventive advice.There was insufficient information regarding the cost-effectiveness of the different remuneration methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives within remuneration systems may produce changes to clinical activity undertaken by primary care dentists. However, the number of included studies is limited and the quality of the evidence from the two included studies was low/very low for all outcomes. Further experimental research in this area is highly recommended given the potential impact of financial incentives on clinical activity, and particular attention should be paid to the impact this has on patient outcomes.

IQuaD dental trial; improving the quality of dentistry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing oral hygiene advice and periodontal instrumentation for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0-3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI.Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases.The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits.

DISCUSSION

IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715.

Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.

METHODS

A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.

RESULTS

369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3% (6-month group), 47.0% (12-month group) and 30.0% (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be "every 6 months" or more frequently: 77.9% (6-month group), 64.6% (12-month group), 71.7% (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of "once a year" or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.36, 6.13).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.