Community dentistry and oral epidemiology最新文献

Objective: To systematically assess current evidence on the extent to which social relationships are associated with tooth loss in adults aged 60 years and older.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies published from 1966 up to March 2024. Cross-sectional or cohort studies investigating the association between structural, functional and/or combined (structural and functional) components of social relationships and the number of remaining teeth or edentulism among community-dwelling or institutionalised older adults were included. Data were extracted on participants' and study characteristics, including study design, the type of measures used to assess social relationships (structural, functional, and combined), outcome measures and association estimates. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and the adapted NOS for cross-sectional studies. The reported association between social relationships and the number of remaining teeth or edentulism was summarised using meta-analysis with robust variance estimation.

Results: Twenty studies were included in the review and 12 studies (125 553 participants) in the meta-analysis. Across the 12 studies, the average odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.15 (1.01-1.32), indicating a 15% higher likelihood of having a lower number of teeth or edentulism for those with weaker social relationships. The GRADE certainty of the body of evidence was low.

Conclusions: Weak social relationships were associated with a lower number of teeth or edentulism in older adults. Our findings may inform potential public health approaches that target and modify social relationships to prevent and address older adults' oral diseases. Still, the directionality and the underlying mechanisms connecting social relationships and tooth loss need to be further explored by longitudinal studies with follow-up long enough for oral health outcomes or changes in social relationships to occur.

Trial registration: Protocol Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023417845).

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a significant threat to global health. Antimicrobial stewardship is reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing to counter it. Dentists prescribe ~10% of all antibiotics worldwide, yet up to 90% of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists are inappropriate. The aim of this systematic review was to update a 2017 review evaluating the effects of antibiotic stewardship interventions in dental settings, using the international consensus on core outcomes for dental antibiotic stewardship.

Methods: Systematic database searches were undertaken in April 2023, of the: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ISRCTN registry databases. Randomised controlled trials (or non-randomised studies with clearly reported mechanism of group formation and inclusion criteria) of interventions to optimise and/or reduce dental antibiotic prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened for eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE. Meta-analysis was planned whether the results of studies reported similar outcomes, otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results: Three eligible studies randomising 2148 participants were included. The interventions were combinations of education, audit and feedback and written behaviour change messages, guideline summary, practice visits and patient leaflets. None of the control groups received an intervention. All three included studies measured the quantity of antibiotics prescribed and two measured the appropriateness of prescribing. None measured patient-reported or adverse outcomes. Two included studies were assessed as 'high risk' and one with 'low risk' of bias. There was high-certainty evidence that audit and personalised feedback with individualised behaviour change messages can be effective. Evidence for in-person education was low-certainty. Guideline dissemination alone was ineffective at improving antibiotic prescribing. Due to different outcomes reported, meta-analysis was inappropriate.

Conclusion: Although various dental antibiotic stewardship interventions have been reported in the literature, none provided high-certainty evidence of effectiveness and only three have been evaluated using a randomised design. To strengthen the body of evidence, well-powered, robust, randomised controlled trials are required, with adequate follow-up, reporting the internationally-agreed core outcomes and including a parallel process evaluation is recommended.

Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023411476).