Effect of a school-based preventive program with salivary lactobacillus counts as sugar-motivating tool on caries increment in adolescents

Systems mapping of multilevel factors contributing to dental caries in adolescents

Dental caries is a prevalent chronic disease among adolescents. Caries activity increases significantly during adolescence due to an increase in susceptible tooth surfaces, immature permanent tooth enamel, independence in pursuing self-care, and a tendency toward poor diet and oral hygiene. Dental caries in permanent teeth is more prevalent among adolescents in low-income families and racial/ethnic minority groups, and these disparities in adolescent dental caries experience have persisted for decades. Several conceptual and data-driven models have proposed unidirectional mechanisms that contribute to the extant disparities in adolescent dental caries experience. Our objective, using a literature review, is to provide an overview of risk factors contributing to adolescent dental caries. Specifically, we map the interactive relationships of multilevel factors that influence dental caries among adolescents. Such interactive multilevel relationships more closely reflect the complex nature of dental caries experience among the adolescent population. The methods that we use are two-fold: (1) a literature review using PubMed and Cochrane databases to find contributing factors; and (2) the system dynamics approach for mapping feedback mechanisms underlying adolescent dental caries through causal loop diagramming. The results of this study, based on the review of 138 articles, identified individual, family and community-level factors and their interactions contributing to dental caries experience in adolescents. Our results also provide hypotheses about the mechanisms underlying persistence of dental caries among adolescents.

Conclusions

Our findings may contribute to a deeper understanding of the multilevel and interconnected factors that shape the persistence of dental caries experience among adolescents.

WITHDRAWN: Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

BACKGROUND

Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

BACKGROUND

Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Is sugar consumption detrimental to health? A review of the evidence 1995-2006

Many countries set quantitative targets for added sugars, justifying this by expressing concern about the likely impact of sugar on weight control, dental health, diet quality, or metabolic syndrome. This review considers whether current intakes of sugar are harmful to health, and analyses recent literature using a systematic approach to collate, rank, and evaluate published studies from 1995-2006. Results from high quality obesity studies did not suggest a positive association between body mass index and sugar intake. Some studies, specifically on sweetened beverages, highlighted a potential concern in relation to obesity risk, although these were limited by important methodological issues. Diet adequacy appeared to be achieved across sugar intakes of 6 to 20% energy, depending on subject age. Studies on metabolic syndrome reported no adverse effects of sugar in the long-term, even at intakes of 40-50% energy. The evidence for colorectal cancer suggested an association with sugar, but this appeared to have been confounded by energy intake and glycemic load. There was no credible evidence linking sugar with attention-deficit, dementia, or depression. Regarding dental caries, combinations of sugar amount/frequency, fluoride exposure, and food adhesiveness were more reliable predictors of caries risk than the amount of sugar alone. Overall, the available evidence did not support a single quantitative sugar guideline covering all health issues.

Cariogenic Bacteria as Biomarkers for Sugar Intake

Cariogenic bacteria (lactobacilli and mutans streptococci) in saliva are possible biomarkers for sugar intake. We evaluated the strength of the evidence for an association between sugar intake and the two groups of bacteria, and concluded that there is a limited to moderately scientific basis for this association. Because of many confounding factors, bacteria counts can never be used as a precise measurement of sugar intake, but might still be useful on a group level.

Variation in assessing the need for change of snacking habits in schoolchildren's oral health counselling

OBJECTIVES

This study examined counselling communication activities that were used for assessing schoolchildren's need for change of snacking habits. In addition, the schoolchildren's assessment of their need for change was explored after a follow-up year (2002-2003).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The follow-up research data included 66 counselling sessions in 2002 and 31 counselling sessions in 2003, with 31 schoolchildren. The sessions were conducted by four dental hygienists. The audio-taped data were analysed qualitatively by using content analysis.

RESULTS

In 2002, the needs assessment was realized in three ways. Infrequently, the schoolchildren either disclosed their need for change or the counsellor explicitly determined the schoolchildren's need for change. Usually, however, the schoolchildren's needs assessment for change occurred through the counsellors' communication activities of assessment, advice, and change-inducing questions. In one-third of the cases, the schoolchildren's need for change remained ambiguous during the sessions in 2002. With respect to positive changes in 2003, the schoolchildren themselves were aware of the need for change. Alternatively, the sessions included change discussion that addressed readiness for change and making changes during the counselling in 2002.

CONCLUSION

Our results revealed that a thorough needs assessment of schoolchildren's snacking habits provides a foundation for behaviourally focused counselling.

Production and characterization of species-specific monoclonal antibodies against Actinomyces naeslundii and Lactobacillus casei

Dental caries is a disease induced by a few cariogenic bacterial species. Quantitative detection of these cariogenic bacteria could provide useful information for caries risk assessment. In this study, we developed highly species-specific monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against the type strains of Actinomyces naeslundii ATCC 12104 and Lactobacillus casei ATCC 11578. Assayed with immunoprecipitation and immunofluorescent microscopy, these antibodies showed high sensitivities and specificities in detecting A. naeslundii and L. casei in saliva. Examining 100 saliva samples using these MAb-based techniques, we found that the number of A. naeslundii in saliva ranges from 0.5 x 10(4) to 4.8 x 10(5) and that the number of L. casei in saliva ranges from 1 x 10(4) to 1.2 x 10(6). With fluorescent imaging techniques and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), these antibodies were used to visualize A. naeslundii and L. casei within dental plaques derived from stimulated whole human saliva in vitro. The study demonstrated that these MAbs were also able to effectively detect A. naeslundii and L. casei in plaque.