Caries experience in the primary dentition among French 6-year-olds between 1991 and 2000

School dental screening programmes for oral health

BACKGROUND

In school dental screening, a dental health professional visually inspects children's oral cavities in a school setting and provides information for parents on their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school aims to identify potential problems before symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening for improving oral health status. It is the second update of a review originally published in December 2017 and first updated in August 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias.  No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for school dental screening in improving dental attendance.  We are uncertain whether traditional screening is better than no screening (very low-certainty evidence). Criteria-based screening may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening (low-certainty evidence). However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence). For children requiring treatment, personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific referral letters (very low-certainty evidence). Screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' is better than a standard referral letter (very low-certainty evidence) or whether specific referral to a dental treatment facility is better than a generic advice letter to visit the dentist (very low-certainty evidence). The trials included in this review evaluated effects of school dental screening in the short term. None of them evaluated its effectiveness for improving oral health or addressed possible adverse effects or costs.

School dental screening programmes for oral health

BACKGROUND

School dental screening refers to visual inspection of children's oral cavity in a school setting followed by making parents aware of their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school intends to identify children at an earlier stage than symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status. It is an update of the original review, which was first published in December 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 4 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 4 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 March 2019), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 4 March 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (five were cluster-RCTs) with 20,192 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Trials assessed follow-up periods of three to eight months. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two were based in India and one in the USA. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, two trials to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases, cost effectiveness or adverse events.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening. We found very low-certainty evidence that is insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone. For children requiring treatment, we found very-low certainty evidence that was inconclusive regarding whether or not a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' was better than a standard referral letter.We did not find any trials addressing possible adverse effects of school dental screening or evaluating its effectiveness for improving oral health.

School dental screening programmes for oral health

BACKGROUND

School dental screening refers to visual inspection of children's oral cavity in a school setting followed by making parents aware of their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school intends to identify children at an earlier stage than symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.

Dental status of new caledonian children: is there a need for a new oral health promotion programme?

BACKGROUND

Before implementing a new oral health promotion program in the French overseas territory of Nouvelle Calédonie, the health authorities needed recent data about dental status of the New Caledonian child population.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the dental status of 6, 9 and 12-yr-old New Caledonian children and to investigate the environmental and behavioural risk factors related to oral health.

METHODS

A randomly selected sample of 2734 children (744 6-yr-olds, 789 9-yr-olds, and 1201 12-yr-olds) was examined clinically by seven calibrated investigators and participants responded to a questionnaire. The main variables were objective criteria about dental status and subjective criteria about experience of dental care, dental fear, self-perception of oral health, cultural or ethnic identity and environmental and behavioural risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall, most of the children had infectious oral diseases: more than 50% had gingivitis, and 60% of 6- and 9 yr-olds had at least one deciduous or permanent tooth with untreated caries. The mean 12-yr-old number of decayed missing and filled teeth (DMFT) was 2.09±2.82. The number of carious lesions was related to the unfavourable lifestyle, deprived social status and no preventive dental care. Kanak, Polynesians and Caledonians (respectively 27%, 18% and 45% of the study sample) were more affected by caries than metropolitan French and Asian children. Children with many untreated carious lesions had negative perceptions of their oral health; they complained of chewing difficulty and had higher scores for dental anxiety.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the need for new strategies aimed at improving oral health and at reducing inequalities in New Caledonia. An oral health promotion program would need to be developed in connection with other health programmes using the common risk factor approach within the context of the local environment.

Social vulnerability in paediatric dentistry: an overview of ethical considerations of therapeutic patient education

Dental caries is a multifactorial condition that remains a major public health issue in high income countries. The prevalence of dental caries in children has markedly declined in most countries over the past 30 years. However, the disease continues to affect a vulnerable population defined as a high-risk group. As many public health policies are inefficient in dealing with this underprivileged group, it is necessary to find other strategies to decrease the incidence and the burden of dental caries. Defining dental caries as a chronic disease enables us to develop the concept of 'therapeutic patient education.' It is meant to train patients to self-manage or adapt treatment to their particular chronic disease and to cope with new processes and skills. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach to dental caries, in particular to early childhood caries. That should decrease the gravity and prevalence of the disease in this specific population. As a result, this new approach could increase the quality of life of many children both in terms of function and aesthetics.

Prevalence and factors related to dental caries among pre-school children of Saddar town, Karachi, Pakistan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is highly prevalent and a significant public health problem among children throughout the world. Epidemiological data regarding prevalence of dental caries amongst Pakistani pre-school children is very limited. The objective of this study is to determine the frequency of dental caries among pre-school children of Saddar Town, Karachi, Pakistan and the factors related to caries.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 1000 preschool children was conducted in Saddar town, Karachi. Two-stage cluster sampling was used to select the sample. At first stage, eight clusters were selected randomly from total 11 clusters. In second stage, from the eight selected clusters, preschools were identified and children between 3- to 6-years age group were assessed for dental caries.

RESULTS

Caries prevalence was 51% with a mean dmft score being 2.08 (±2.97) of which decayed teeth constituted 1.95. The mean dmft of males was 2.3 (±3.08) and of females was 1.90 (±2.90). The mean dmft of 3, 4, 5 and 6-year olds was 1.65, 2.11, 2.16 and 3.11 respectively. A significant association was found between dental caries and following variables: age group of 4-years (p-value < 0.029, RR = 1.248, 95% Bias corrected CI 0.029-0.437) and 5-years (p-value < 0.009, RR = 1.545, 95% Bias corrected CI 0.047-0.739), presence of dental plaque (p-value < 0.003, RR = 0.744, 95% Bias corrected CI (-0.433)-(-0.169)), poor oral hygiene (p-value < 0.000, RR = 0.661, 95% Bias corrected CI (-0.532)-(-0.284)), as well as consumption of non-sweetened milk (p-value < 0.049, RR = 1.232, 95% Bias corrected CI 0.061-0.367).

CONCLUSION

Half of the preschoolers had dental caries coupled with a high prevalence of unmet dental treatment needs. Association between caries experience and age of child, consumption of non-sweetened milk, dental plaque and poor oral hygiene had been established.

Addressing children's oral health inequalities: caries experience before and after the implementation of an oral health promotion program

OBJECTIVE

(1) To evaluate the dental status of 5-year-old children in Clermont-Ferrand (France) in 2009; (2) To measure changes in children's dental status between 2003 and 2009; and (3) To estimate the impact of an Oral Health Promotion (OHP) program implemented in nine schools since 2005.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 5-year-olds attending public schools in deprived areas (n = 15) and six randomly selected other schools in Clermont-Ferrand were invited to participate. Dental status was recorded using d(3)mft, as in 2003. Parents responded to questions about their child's oral hygiene and provided socio-demographic information.

RESULTS

Of children invited, 478 (77%) were examined. Mean dmft was 1.18 (SD 2.61); 27.6% had at least one tooth affected. Caries experience varied significantly with deprivation status, oral hygiene and household SES indicators. The only difference observed between 2003 and 2009 was an increase in the 'f' component (p < 0.001). Dental status had slightly deteriorated in areas characterized in 2003 by low caries levels (p=0.07). In deprived areas, mean dmft increased in schools without the OHP program (p = 0.04). Changes between 2003 and 2009 were studied at school level using Multiple Factorial Analysis; it tended to improve in four schools, which had the OHP program. Household indicators of SES changed little. Oral hygiene levels varied differently from one school to another.

CONCLUSIONS

Caries experience was high, with large inequalities between children. No major differences were observed between 2003 and 2009. The OHP program has done little to reduce disparities in oral health, even if dental status improved in four schools.

What is an appropriate caries diagnosis?

This aim of this paper is to spur a discussion of the direction of caries-lesion detection activities in clinical dental practice. It is argued that since the dental clinician's caries-related decision making is a script-matching enterprise in which clinical decisions are made on the basis of 'this-lesion-needs-this-kind-of-treatment' reasoning, the methods and strategies employed for caries lesion detection should accommodate this fact. This may be done by employing a clinical visual-tactile method for caries lesion detection that evaluates the two aspects that are crucial for appropriate caries management: lesion activity and surface integrity. The use of diagnostic methods that do not assess these features directly but involve assumptions about activity status and surface integrity should be avoided. This includes the use of bite-wing radiography for the detection of approximal caries lesions, as it may be shown that plain reliance on radiographs leads to considerable overtreatment. If clinical dentistry is to retain its status as a profession committed to doing good, changes in diagnostic practices along these lines are warranted.

Dental status and measures of deprivation in Clermont-Ferrand, France

BACKGROUND

Many background variables, such as socioeconomic status (SES), may be measured at the level of the individual or using some ecological indicators.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine, in 5- and 10-year-olds in Clermont-Ferrand, the relationship between household SES indicators, SES measured as an area-based ecological variable and dental status.

METHODS

All 5- and 10-year-olds attending public schools in deprived and semi-deprived zones (n = 15) and six other randomly selected schools in Clermont-Ferrand were invited to participate. All children were examined clinically. On a questionnaire, parents provided sociodemographic information.

RESULTS

Of the children invited, 84% (880 children) were examined. Mean dft of 5-year-olds was 0.93 (SD 2.27); 26.5% had at least one tooth affected. The caries experience (DMFT) of 10-year-olds was 0.85 (SD 1.14) and 37.2% had permanent tooth caries experience. Caries experience varied significantly with school deprivation status: the greater the deprivation score, the more likely was poor dental health. Country of birth, parents' employment status, family size and health insurance type were significantly related to dental status. Logistic analyses estimated the importance of SES and ecological variables; deprivation influenced dental status in 5-year-olds even when household SES indicators were considered. In 10-year-olds, caries experience was influenced by household SES, immigrant background, father's employment and family size.

CONCLUSION

The use of school deprivation as an ecological measure status was useful for identifying population subgroups with different levels of oral health, particularly in young children. This indicator of social deprivation could be used for targeting preventive programmes to high caries risk communities defined geographically.