International journal of paediatric dentistry最新文献

Background: Caries in primary teeth remain a common health issue.

Aim: To identify oral health behaviours which significantly affect dental caries in children aged 5-6 years.

Design: A national cross-sectional study of 1892 children integrated dental examinations and a questionnaire regarding socio-economic factors and oral health habits. Caries indices were calculated. The analyses included t- and chi-square tests, Spearman's correlation, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression (p < 0.05).

Results: The majority of children (79.3%) had caries; mean dmft was 4.68 ± 4.05; dmfs-9.12 ± 10.74 and ft/ft. + dt-0.20 ± 0.31. There were correlations between mother's education, her knowledge of oral health, financial burden, the frequency of dental appointments and the treatment (p < 0.001). The dmft indices were correlated with postponing dental appointments and presenting with pain. The association between the treatment index, oral hygiene habits (parental-supervised toothbrushing twice a day, using fluoridated toothpaste) and dietary practices (restrictions of sugar intake, fruit juices and starchy foodstuffs) was found, even after socio-economic confounding factors were introduced.

Conclusion: The first years of a child's life are a period when the foundations of adult lifestyle choices are shaped. Parents should be aware of the importance of dental visits, nutritional counselling and proper oral care. The assessment of risk factors related to families is indispensable when prophylactic programmes are implemented.

Background: Teledentistry has supplemented current dental healthcare systems and has been proven effective in pediatric dentistry.

Aim: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual pediatric dentistry clinic (VC).

Design: This mixed methods study used an explanatory sequential design. First, a quantitative survey assessed parental satisfaction with VC. The second phase involved two parts: (1) qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and (2) ten observations of virtual appointments were conducted to aid in findings' triangulation.

Results: Forty-five VC were conducted with children and parents. Thirty-six parents (80%) were highly satisfied, while nine (20%) had low satisfaction. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven highly satisfied and seven minimally satisfied parents. Eight themes emerged: (1) VC indication; (2) VC outcome; (3) new experience; (4) improvements in the child's behavior; (5) VC limitations; (6) skepticism about delivery of care; (7) convenience and accessibility; and (8) reduction in transportation cost and time. VC observation findings were triangulated with the results from the interviews, which showed that low-satisfaction parents reported pain, facial cellulitis, and complex cases that needed immediate treatment at dental clinics.

Conclusion: Teledentistry is a feasible complement to the continuum of care, enabling remote triage and consultation as needed, and is highly accepted by parents.

We appreciate the academic engagement expressed in the Letter to the Editor regarding our study titled “Do the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pediatric Dentistry Meet the Quality Standards? A Meta-Research and Quality Appraisal Using the AGREE II Tool”. We acknowledge our shared commitment to enhancing the reporting quality and methodological rigor of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) to ensure their validity, transparency, and reproducibility, ultimately benefiting researchers, stakeholders and clinicians. In this spirit, we welcome the opportunity to address key points related to the letter.

Additionally, we recognize the need for greater precision in the terminology of evidence-based documents. This challenge has also been acknowledged in the medical field, as discussed by Aleksovska et al. (2021) [4] in their analysis of the distinctions between clinical practice guidelines and other types of evidence-based documents.

Our study was explicitly designed as meta-research, an interdisciplinary approach to researching research itself, with the aim of ensuring the transparency and methodological rigor of the evaluated documents—rather than assessing the validity of their recommendations. This intent was clearly stated in our final considerations, where we emphasized the need to raise awareness and improve future Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). We underscored the importance of adhering to reporting guidelines in CPG development to enhance transparency and maximize their benefit to the broader community.

The Letter to the Editor raises concerns about the distinction between reporting quality and methodological rigor, particularly arguing that the AGREE II tool is intended to assess reporting rather than methodology. However, AGREE II explicitly includes Domain 3: Rigor of Development, which evaluates key methodological aspects such as systematic evidence searches, the strength of recommendations, criteria for selecting evidence, and stakeholder involvement. This domain ensures that guidelines adhere to robust methodological standards and helps mitigate potential biases.

Additionally, the Letter to the Editor questioned the clarity of reporting regarding the 15 guidelines older than 10 years and their respective organizations. However, this information is explicitly detailed in File S3 in our primary publication, which provides a comprehensive table classifying all included guidelines by organization, along with their titles and publication years. This ensures that guidelines older than 10 years can be clearly identified.

We agree with the authors of the Letter to the Editor that CPGs are generally recommended to be updated every 5 years, and we acknowledge that a direct comparison between guidelines published in the last 5 years and earlier ones could be a valuable avenue for future research. However, we also recognize that updates may not always be necessary in the absence of substantial new evi