British Dental Journal最新文献

Introduction Evidence for economic evaluations (EEs) is essential for informed decision-making in healthcare. This scoping review of economic studies based on school dental screening and prevention programmes summarises the key facts in a narrative format and analyses knowledge gaps.Aim This scoping review mapped the existing literature on EEs in school dental screening and prevention and assessed the completeness of reporting using the CHEERS 2022 checklist.Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across three databases (Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus) for EEs with no date restriction. EEs of school-based dental prevention programmes were included and grouped into three categories based on the intervention focus: prevention only, combined prevention and treatment interventions, and screening interventions. Quality assessment was conducted using the CHEERS checklist.Results A total of 11 EEs met inclusion criteria. While most studies reported short-term outcomes, fewer than half adequately estimated future cost saving.Discussion The evidence base for economic evaluations in school-based caries prevention is fragmented, with many studies focusing on isolated components rather than broader, integrated models of care.Conclusion Caries prevention is a long-term investment, and evaluations should account for future reduced treatment needs. More comprehensive and context-sensitive evaluations are needed to guide resource allocation and improve long-term oral health outcomes for children.

Objectives To systematically review the association between education and tooth loss.Methods We performed an electronic search of PubMed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines with a focused PICO (population/problem, intervention, comparison, outcome) question: are adults with low educational attainment more prone to tooth loss than adults with higher education? Observational studies published between 2000-2022 examining adults ≥18 years with clinical or self-reported tooth loss were included. Quality of the reports was established using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results We identified 30 studies (735,576 individuals) across 15 countries. The majority were cross-sectional (90%) and rated as low/moderate quality (67%). Educational level was assessed as years of schooling or categorical attainment. Tooth loss was measured through clinical examination (53.3%) or self-report (46.7%). Primary education or less was consistently linked to higher likelihood of edentulism (odds ratio [OR] range: 2-4.9), fewer remaining teeth (OR range: 1.2-5.8), and greater tooth loss (OR range: 1.2-2.1) relative to higher levels. A university degree significantly reduced the odds of edentulism or tooth loss (OR range 0.3-0.75) compared to lower levels.Conclusions Lower educational attainment is associated with increased tooth loss. These findings provide a foundation for developing evidence-based policies and targeted interventions to address tooth loss in vulnerable populations.

Background Community Dental Services and secondary care providers face significant pressures due to the high volume of children referred for treatment. It has been suggested that dentists with special interests could bridge the gap between primary care and specialist services. A Level 2 training programme was designed in Yorkshire and the Humber to equip participants with the knowledge and skills to apply for Level 2 accreditation in paediatric dentistry.Methods Participants undertaking the first three cohorts of Level 2 training (n = 34) were invited to take part in an anonymised, online, mixed-methods survey. The survey explored how the programme had impacted their knowledge, confidence, and practice in paediatric dentistry, alongside some questions on the participants' background demographics.Results Participants reported increased frequency and confidence in completing common paediatric dental procedures. They also felt more confident managing paediatric medical and dental conditions and independently handling safeguarding concerns after training. Reference was made to the specialist network created and greater confidence treating Level 2 paediatric patients in general practice, knowing support was available if needed.Conclusions The Level 2 training programme had a demonstrably positive effect on participants' knowledge and confidence in providing care for Level 2 paediatric patients.