Behavioural and social oral health intervention research: Looking to the future

The oral microbiota and periodontal health in orthodontic patients

The oral microbiota develops within the first 2 years of childhood and becomes distinct from the parents by 4 years-of-age. The oral microbiota plays an important role in the overall health/symbiosis of the individual. Deviations from the state of symbiosis leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of pathogenicity. Deviations can occur not only from daily life activities but also from orthodontic interventions. Orthodontic appliances are formed from a variety of biomaterials. Once inserted, they serve as a breeding ground for microbial attachment, not only from new surface areas and crevices but also from material physicochemical interactions different than in the symbiotic state. Individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment show, compared with untreated people, qualitative and quantitative differences in activity within the oral microbiota, induced by increased retention of supra- and subgingival microbial plaque throughout the treatment period. These changes are at the root of the main undesirable effects, such as gingivitis, white spot lesions (WSL), and more severe caries lesions. Notably, the oral microbiota profile in the first weeks of orthodontic intervention might be a valuable indicator to predict and identify higher-risk individuals with respect to periodontal health and caries risk within an otherwise healthy population. Antimicrobial coatings have been used to dissuade microbes from adhering to the biomaterial; however, they disrupt the host microbiota, and several bacterial strains have become resistant. Smart biomaterials that can reduce the antimicrobial load preventing microbial adhesion to orthodontic appliances have shown promising results, but their complexity has kept many solutions from reaching the clinic. 3D printing technology provides opportunities for complex chemical syntheses to be performed uniformly, reducing the cost of producing smart biomaterials giving hope that they may reach the clinic in the near future. The purpose of this review is to emphasize the importance of the oral microbiota during orthodontic therapy and to use innovative technologies to better maintain its healthy balance during surgical procedures.

Mental health screening and referral to treatment in dental practices: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review to examine and summarize the characteristics of research related to mental health (MH) screenings and/or referrals to treatment in dental practices.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for Scoping Reviews and searched multiple databases for terms connected with dental care, MH concerns, screening, and referral. Included articles: (1) described care provided in a dental practice, (2) described a situation where the patient is experiencing the potential MH problem, (3) did not involve dental anxiety exclusively, and (4) involved some form of MH screening and/or referral to treatment. Article analysis included a summary of key study characteristics, types of evidence, study design, and central concepts and definitions.

RESULTS

The search generated 2050 records, with 26 ultimately included. Most studies involved only adults (22, 85%), but only three (12%) reported on rurality (two urban; one mixed) and only two each (8%) reported race or ethnicity. Fifteen (58%) articles were prospective and 11 (42%) were retrospective. The studies varied widely in study designs, from 11 (42%) cross-sectional methodologies to only one (4%) randomized controlled trial. Thirty-four screening tools were used to screen for symptoms of 43 MH conditions, with depression and anxiety screened for most frequently. Few articles discussed making referrals, practice workflows, or follow-up outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Included studies provide evidence of viable options for dental practitioners regarding MH screening, referring, and conducting follow-up, but lack specificity regarding these processes. Overall, more research is needed to clarify what workflows are most efficient for dental practitioners and efficacious in identifying patients with MH concerns.

Why don't dental teams routinely discuss dentine hypersensitivity during consultations? A qualitative study informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework

AIM

Although dentine hypersensitivity is widespread, can cause substantial pain and impact quality of life, it is not routinely discussed during dental consultations. This qualitative study aimed to develop an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to these discussions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework to shape the topic guide, N = 7 online focus groups were organized with a total N = 40 participants comprising experienced dentists, dental foundation trainees and dental care professionals. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses of the anonymized, transcribed focus group conversations were undertaken.

RESULTS

An attitude-behaviour gap was observed in dental teams' accounts. Although they saw it as part of their professional role to routinely discuss sensitivity, and believed that such conversations were 'an easy win', in practice they experienced several behavioural barriers that hindered these conversations from taking place. These included competing priorities, a perceived lack of seriousness and assessment of dentine hypersensitivity and practical issues such as time.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic (e.g., lack of time and training, professional culture) and behavioural (e.g., dental teams' belief that conversations should take place only with patients likely to be adherent) barriers to dentine hypersensitivity conversations explain why these conversations do not routinely take place.