Do electronic cigarette devices/vapes impact the colour of dental ceramics?

DESIGN

In vitro primary research study.

CASE SELECTION AND METHOD

Five frequently used restorative dental ceramic materials (pressable ceramics (PEmax), pressed and layered ceramics (LEmax), layered zirconia (LZr), monolithic zirconia (MZr) and porcelain fused to metal (PFM)) were selected and manufactured in shade A1. Samples of each material were prepared in discs and kept in water at 37°C for 24 hours then aged via thermocycling. Samples were positioned in a plastic chamber to mimic the intraoral setting and exposed to vape smoke through an artificial lung vacuum system. The procedure was repeated until target exposure puffs were achieved, ranging from 250-1500 puffs. The ECDs/vape device, refill juice and concentration used for puff generation were chosen based on a survey reporting high consumption. A spectrophotometer was used to measure sample colour through L*a*b values (lightness, axes of green, red, blue and yellow). CIELAB formula was used to calculate total colour difference (∆E) at six time intervals.

DATA ANALYSIS

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's posthoc testing was used to compare mean ∆E values with 95% confidence intervals for all specimens. Cut off for significance was α < 0.05.

RESULTS

All ceramics showed colour variation following exposure to ECD aerosol. With the exception of PEmax, all tested materials lightness values changed following exposure to 250 puffs. At 1500 puff exposures, LEmax, LZr and MZr showed significant colour changes, whereas PEmax and PFM showed clinically acceptable and insignificant change.

CONCLUSIONS

Colour change of dental ceramics varies depending on the ceramic material used and puff exposure number. Exposure to ECD aerosols can result in aesthetically noticeable colour changes in LEmax, LZr and MZr. Colour changes demonstrated are less than those caused by traditional tobacco smoking.

Citizen science to improve patient and public involvement in GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry (the GUIDE platform)

BACKGROUND

Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry.

METHODS

We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms.

CONCLUSION

Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript.

Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP): a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Progression of dental caries can result in irreversible pulpal damage. Partial irreversible pulpitis is the initial stage of this damage, confined to the coronal pulp whilst the radicular pulp shows little or no sign of infection. Preserving the pulp with sustained vitality and developing minimally invasive biologically based therapies are key themes within contemporary clinical practice. However, root canal treatment involving complete removal of the pulp is often the only option (other than extraction) given to patients with irreversible pulpitis, with substantial NHS and patient incurred costs. The European Society of Endodontology's (ESE 2019) recent consensus statement recommends full pulpotomy, where the inflamed coronal pulp is removed with the goal of keeping the radicular pulp vital, as a more minimally invasive technique, potentially avoiding complex root canal treatment. Although this technique may be provided in secondary care, it has not been routinely implemented or evaluated in UK General Dental Practice.

METHOD

This feasibility study aims to identify and assess in a primary care setting the training needs of general dental practitioners and clinical fidelity of the full pulpotomy intervention, estimate likely eligible patient pool and develop recruitment materials ahead of the main randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of full pulpotomy compared to root canal treatment in pre/molar teeth of adults 16 years and older showing signs indicative of irreversible pulpitis. The feasibility study will recruit and train 10 primary care dentists in the full pulpotomy technique. Dentists will recruit and provide full pulpotomy to 40 participants (four per practice) with indications of partial irreversible pulpitis.

DISCUSSION

The Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP) study will address the lack of high-quality evidence in the treatment of irreversible pulpitis, to aid dental practitioners, patients and policymakers in their decision-making. The PIP feasibility study will inform the main study on the practicality of providing both training and provision of the full pulpotomy technique in general dental practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17973604 . Registered on 28 January 2021. Protocol version Protocol version: 1; date: 03.02.2021.

Clinical and radiographic assessment and restoration of maxillary sinus function in relation to oro-antral fistula closure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine current practice in assessment of maxillary sinus health during oro-antral fistula closure.

METHOD

A systematic review using specific MeSH headings between 1990 and September 2021 on Medline, Ovid, and PubMed was performed. The inclusion criterion was closure of oro-antral fistula in adult patients. Exclusion criteria were oro-antral fistula arising in children; or from trauma, malignancy, or developmental abnormality; or any osteonecrotic lesion of bone. Risk of bias for individual papers was not assessed. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine levels of evidence were recorded.

RESULTS

4309 papers were identified, and 119 were eligible for review. Nineteen were from otolaryngology (16%), 25 from combined ear, nose, and throat (ENT) and oral/oral and maxillofacial (OS/OMF) surgery (21%), and 75 from OS/OMF surgery (63%). Preoperative rhinoscopy and cross-sectional imaging were reported in 33 papers (28%), reflecting the role of ENT with or without OS/OMFS. Sixty-eight did not record any formal assessment of maxillary sinus health (57%), of which 60 were from OS/OMF surgery (50%). Use of computed tomography was reported in 58 papers (49%), and use of cone beam computed tomography was reported in 8 papers (7%) but did not correlate with assessment of sinus health.

DISCUSSION

Most surgery for oro-antral fistual closure was undertaken without objective assessment of maxillary sinus health, pre- or postoperatively. The involvement of ENT was associated with formal assessment of maxillary sinus health.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.

Twitter communication of the UK public on dental health and care during a COVID lockdown: "My kingdom for a dentist"

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a UK-wide closure of dental services. An understanding of public concerns about dental care was urgently needed to inform careful resumption of paused dental services.

AIM

To describe public concerns about dental care during lockdown.

BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN

Framework analysis of relevant Twitter posts identified collected using the Awario tool.

RESULTS

Of 1863 tweets manually screened for eligibility, 285 were relevant, as they contained views expressed by the public. The number of tweets by country were proportionate to the population size. The key views expressed in tweets focused on: 'oral health impact' ('oral health and self-care', 'types of dental problems', 'managing symptoms at home', 'views on consequences of delaying treatment') and 'dental service or care provision' ('views on managing dental care response', 'experiences with access to dental care').

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of COVID-19 on dental services raised many physical and mental health concerns for the public, highlighting their importance. Online profiles and social media communication platforms can be used to provide convenient, and timely information on public perceptions of dental care.

Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Teeth (SCRiPT) for the treatment of deep carious lesions: a randomised controlled clinical trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most adults experience dental caries during their lifetime and the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey reported that 85% of adults have at least one dental restoration. Conservative removal of tooth tissue for both primary and secondary caries reduces the risk of failure due to tooth-restoration, complex fracture as well as remaining tooth surfaces being less vulnerable to further caries. However, despite its prevalence there is no consensus on how much caries to remove prior to placing a restoration to achieve optimal outcomes. Evidence for selective compared to complete or near-complete caries removal suggests there may be benefits for selective removal in sustaining tooth vitality, therefore avoiding abscess formation and pain, so eliminating the need for more complex and costly treatment or eventual tooth loss. However, the evidence is of low scientific quality and mainly gleaned from studies in primary teeth.

METHOD

This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm patient randomised controlled clinical trial including an internal pilot set in primary dental care in Scotland and England. Dental health professionals will recruit 623 participants over 12-years of age with deep carious lesions in their permanent posterior teeth. Participants will have a single tooth randomised to either the selective caries removal or complete caries removal treatment arm. Baseline measures and outcome data (during the 3-year follow-up period) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. A mixed-method process evaluation will complement the clinical and economic outcome evaluation and examine implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. The primary outcome at three years is sustained tooth vitality. The primary economic outcome is net benefit modelled over a lifetime horizon. Clinical secondary outcomes include pulp exposure, progession of caries, restoration failure; as well as patient-centred and economic outcomes.

DISCUSSION

SCRiPT will provide evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-beneficial approach to managing deep carious lesions in permanent posterior teeth in primary care. This will support general dental practitioners, patients and policy makers in decision making. Trial Registration Trial registry: ISRCTN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN76503940. Date of Registration: 30.10.2019. URL of trial registry record: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76503940?q=ISRCTN76503940%20&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search .

Does a history of periodontal disease affect implant survival?

Data sources Three electronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) with date of publication between January 2003 and May 2018. Only articles written in English were included. Following electronic searches, the authors conducted manual searches of oral implant/periodontal journals from January 2012 to May 2018. In the event of disagreement on article selection, a further senior reviewer would make the final decision on its inclusion or exclusion following discussion.Study selection In total, 172 articles from the electronic search and ten from manual search were identified for initial screening. From the title and abstract, 18 articles were identified for full-text screening. Following this, 13 articles were included for quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The articles assessed the impact of history of periodontitis (HP) on implant survival, radiographic bone loss, pocket depth and bleeding on probing around the dental implant. All studies were either cohort or controlled studies. Seven of the 13 identified studies were prospective. Included studies fulfilled the following criteria: any human studies with supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) application, details of SPT provided in the studies for implant maintenance, compares the outcomes of implants from both patients with and without a HP and peri-implant conditions recorded.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to carry out quality assessment. Data was extracted to calculate risk ratio (RR) of implant survival, weighted mean difference (WMD) for radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index in patients with and without a HP.Results Implant survival rate was assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes also assessed were radiographic bone loss, pocket depth, bleeding on probing and plaque indices. In implants with rough surfaces, the HP group showed a reduced implant survival rate (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, P <0.001) even under regular supportive post-implant treatment. They also showed more radiographic marginal bone loss (WMD: 0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.2-0.48, P <0.001), pocket depth (WMD: 0.47 mm, 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, P <0.001) and bleeding on probing (WMD: 0.08 mm, 95% CI: 0.04-0.11, P <0.001) when compared to the non-HP group. In implants with a machined surface, again the HP group had more radiographic bone loss (WMD: 0.88 mm, 95% CI: 0.65-1.11, P <0.001) than the non-HP group. However, in implants with machined surfaces, there was no statistically significant difference in survival rate between HP and non-HP groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.92-1.04, P = 0.895).Conclusion In implants with rough surfaces, a history of periodontal disease has a negative impact on survival rate, even with SPT.

How can local anaesthesia be improved in the management of irreversible pulpitis?

Background Pain management in endodontic treatment is often managed with local anaesthetic, occasionally supplemented with oral medication. Currently, there is little evidence to suggest the best combination of local anaesthetic and oral medication to provide optimal pain control in symptomatic irreversible pulpits. A network meta-analysis was carried out to identify the best agent/technique for pulpal anaesthesia in both the maxilla and mandible in irreversible pulpits.Methods Electronic searches of Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar. Reference lists of suitable studies along with manual searches to identify further appropriate studies were also carried out. Sixty-one randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, investigating different local anaesthetic agents, methods of administration, and the adjunct use of medications and alternative therapies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data collection. Heterogeneity was assessed using chi-squared and I2 tests. Studies comparing the same interventions were pooled to define direct comparison estimates. A common comparator was used to compare indirect comparison estimates. Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate effect.Results The results were presented on forest plots; 53 studies investigated irreversible pulpitis in the mandible, seven studies in the maxilla and one in both. In the mandible, inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) with 2% lidocaine was the control. Direct comparison of outcomes found that the best interventions in the mandible were pre-medication with aceclofenac and paracetamol followed by IANB, or IANB with 2% lidocaine with buccal infiltration with 4% articaine, both compared to the control alone. Indirect comparison found pre-medication with ibuprofen and paracetamol before IANB to be the best intervention compared to the control. No significant differences were found between the interventions in the maxilla.Conclusion The quality of all the included evidence was very low and further studies need to be carried out, focusing on larger sample sizes and better quality of studies.

Examining the impact of oral hygiene advice and/or scale and polish on periodontal disease: the IQuaD cluster factorial randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of different frequencies of scale and polish (S&P) treatments in combination with different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA).

Design Multi-centre, multi-level cluster randomised factorial open trial with blinded outcome evaluation. UK dental practices were cluster randomised to deliver OHA as usual or personalised. In a separate randomisation, patients were allocated to receive S&P 6-monthly, 12-monthly or never.

Setting UK primary dental care.

Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.

Main outcome measures The percent of sites with bleeding on probing, patient confidence in self-care, incremental net benefits (INB) over three years.

Results Sixty-three practices and 1,877 adult patients were randomised and 1,327 analysed (clinical outcome). There was no statistically significant or clinically important difference in gingival bleeding between the three S&P groups (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference 0.87% sites, 95% CI: 1.6 to 3.3, p = 0.48) or between personalised or usual OHA groups (difference -2.5% sites, -95%CI: -8.3 to 3.3, p = 0.39), or oral hygiene self-efficacy (cognitive impact) between either group (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063, p = 0.543). The general population place a high value on, and are willing to pay for, S&P services. However, from a dental health perspective, none of the interventions were cost-effective.

Conclusion Results suggest S&P treatments and delivering brief personalised OHA provide no clinical benefit and are therefore an inefficient approach to improving dental health (38% of sites were bleeding whatever intervention was received). However, the general population value both interventions.

Describes the process of successfully delivering a multi-centre, cluster randomised factorial open trial in general dental practice in the NHS, for the most frequently provided dental treatment, scale and polish (S&P), and oral hygiene advice.

Highlights the clinical, economic and patient-centred outcomes from providing S&P at different time intervals alongside personalised or routine oral hygiene advice to over 2,000 participants for three years.

Evidence from IQuaD concludes that there was no difference in gingival bleeding across trial arms at three years; however, the general population are willing to pay for and place a high value on both S&P and personalised oral hygiene advice.

The Value of Preventative Dental Care: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Scale and polish (SP) and oral hygiene advice (OHA) are commonly provided in primary care dental practice to help prevent periodontal disease. These services are widely consumed by service users, incurring substantial cost, without any clear evidence of clinical benefit. This article aims to elicit general population preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for preventative dental care services and outcomes. An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by a nationally representative sample of the UK general population. Respondents each answered 10 choice tasks that varied in terms of service attributes (SP, OHA, and provider of care), outcomes (bleeding gums and aesthetics), and cost. Choice tasks were selected using a pivoted segmented experimental design to improve task realism. An error components panel logit model was used to analyze the data. Marginal WTP (mWTP) for each attribute and level was calculated. In total, 667 respondents completed the DCE. Respondents valued more frequent SP, care provided by a dentist, and personalized OHA. Respondents were willing to pay for dental packages that generated less frequent ("never" or "hardly ever") bleeding on brushing and teeth that look and feel at least "moderately clean." Respondents were willing to pay more (+£145/y) for improvements in an aesthetic outcome from "very unclean" (-£85/y) to "very clean" (+£60/y) than they were for reduced bleeding frequency (+£100/y) from "very often" (-£54/y) to "never" (+£36/y). The general population value routinely provided SP, even in the absence of reductions in bleeding on brushing. Dental care service providers must consider service user preferences, including preferences for both health and nonhealth outcomes, as a key factor in any service redesign. Furthermore, the results provide mWTP estimates that can be used in cost-benefit analysis of these dental care services.

Highly variable upper and abyssal overturning cells in the South Atlantic

The Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) is a primary mechanism driving oceanic heat redistribution on Earth, thereby affecting Earth's climate and weather. However, the full-depth structure and variability of the MOC are still poorly understood, particularly in the South Atlantic. This study presents unique multiyear records of the oceanic volume transport of both the upper (<~3100 meters) and abyssal (>~3100 meters) overturning cells based on daily moored measurements in the South Atlantic at 34.5°S. The vertical structure of the time-mean flows is consistent with the limited historical observations. Both the upper and abyssal cells exhibit a high degree of variability relative to the temporal means at time scales, ranging from a few days to a few weeks. Observed variations in the abyssal flow appear to be largely independent of the flow in the overlying upper cell. No meaningful trends are detected in either cell.

WITHDRAWN: Operative caries management in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I2 = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults

BACKGROUND

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). 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 the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I² = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.

One-to-one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health

BACKGROUND

Effective oral hygiene measures carried out on a regular basis are vital to maintain good oral health. One-to-one oral hygiene advice (OHA) within the dental setting is often provided as a means to motivate individuals and to help achieve improved levels of oral health. However, it is unclear if one-to-one OHA in a dental setting is effective in improving oral health and what method(s) might be most effective and efficient.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of one-to-one OHA, provided by a member of the dental team within the dental setting, on patients' oral health, hygiene, behaviour, and attitudes compared to no advice or advice in a different format.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 November 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 10 November 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 November 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials (10 November 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Reference lists of relevant articles and previously published systematic reviews were handsearched. The authors of eligible trials were contacted, where feasible, to identify any unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of one-to-one OHA delivered by a dental care professional in a dental care setting with a minimum of 8 weeks follow-up. We included healthy participants or participants who had a well-defined medical condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors carried out selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Consensus was achieved by discussion, or involvement of a third review author if required.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review with data available for a total of 4232 participants. The included studies reported a wide variety of interventions, study populations, clinical outcomes and outcome measures. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies and it was not deemed appropriate to pool data in a meta-analysis. We summarised data by categorising similar interventions into comparison groups.Comparison 1: Any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHAFour studies compared any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHA.Two studies reported the outcome of gingivitis. Although one small study had contradictory results at 3 months and 6 months, the other study showed very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at all time points (very low-quality evidence).The same two studies reported the outcome of plaque. There was low-quality evidence that these interventions showed a benefit for OHA in plaque reduction at all time points.Two studies reported the outcome of dental caries at 6 months and 12 months respectively. There was very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at 12 months.Comparison 2: Personalised one-to-one OHA versus routine one-to-one OHAFour studies compared personalised OHA versus routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).Comparison 3: Self-management versus professional OHAFive trials compared some form of self-management with some form of professional OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis or plaque (very low quality). None of the studies measured dental caries.Comparison 4: Enhanced one-to-one OHA versus one-to-one OHASeven trials compared some form of enhanced OHA with some form of routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend any specific one-to-one OHA method as being effective in improving oral health or being more effective than any other method. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to determine the most effective, efficient method of one-to-one OHA for oral health maintenance and improvement. The design of such trials should be cognisant of the limitations of the available evidence presented in this Cochrane Review.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To determine the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of interventions (non‐selective, selective or stepwise carious tissue removal, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns, or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro‐cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non‐cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

Removing or Controlling? How Caries Management Impacts on the Lifetime of Teeth

Historically, traditional carious lesion management focused on the importance of removal of all carious tissue, with little thought to the lesion origins. The surgical removal of any sign of a carious lesion was prioritised with little, or no, consideration to pulp vitality, loss of tooth structure, or caries disease management. This symptomatic approach concentrating on lesions rather than on the cause of the disease, focused on preventing secondary carious lesion development. Early detection and improved understanding of the caries process - that lesion progress can be arrested or slowed - has led to preventive measures and less destructive management as a focus. The choice of lesion management depends on: whether a primary or permanent tooth is involved; which tooth surface(s) is/are involved; whether the lesion is confined to enamel or extends into dentine; the lesion depth, and lesion cleansability. Use of preventive and minimally invasive operative strategies is complicated by the lack of predictable ways of recording lesions' status to allow early detection of failed strategies and early intervention. Because re-restoration usually makes the cavity larger and, consequently, the tooth weaker, the clinician should be certain about initiating the repeat restoration cycle, delaying the first restoration as much as possible. The 3 main principles that support preventing or slowing the repeat restoration cycle are: (1) avoid restoration placement until there is no other option; (2) place them for maximum longevity; (3) if re-restoration is necessary, repair or refurbishment is preferable to replacement of a defective restoration.

Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions: a systematic review

Background

Inconsistent outcome reporting is one significant hurdle to combining results from trials into systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS) can reduce this barrier. The aim of this review was to map outcomes reported in caries prevention and management randomised controlled trials (RCT) as a first step to COS development. We also investigated RCT characteristics and reporting of primary outcomes and sample size calculations.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched (1 January 1968 to 25 August 2015). Inclusion criteria: RCTs comparing any technique for prevention or management of caries with another or placebo and RCTs comparing interventions to support patients undergoing treatment of caries (without setting, dentition or age restrictions). Categories were developed through piloting and group consensus and outcomes grouped accordingly.

Results

Of 4773 search results, 764 were potentially relevant, full text was available for 731 papers and 605 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included. For all outcomes across the time periods 1968–1980 and 2001–2010, reporting of outcome ‘caries experience’ reduced from 39% to 18%; ‘clinical performance of the restoration’ reporting increased from 33% to 42% although there was a reduction to 22% in 2011–2015. Emerging outcome domains include ‘lesion activity’ and ‘pulp health-related outcomes’, accounting for 1% and 0%, respectively, during 1968–1980 and 10% and 4% for 2011–2015. Reporting ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘quality of life measures’ have remained at a low level. No publications reported tooth survival independent of an index such as DMFT or equivalent. Primary outcomes were only identified as such in 414 (68%) of the reports.

Conclusions

Over the past 50 years, outcome reporting for trials on prevention and management of carious lesions have tended to focus on outcomes measuring caries experience and restoration material clinical performance with lesion activity and cost-effectiveness increasingly being reported. Patient-reported and patient-focused outcomes are becoming more common (although as secondary outcomes) but remain low in use. The challenge with developing a COS will be balancing commonly previously reported outcomes against those more relevant for the future.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42015025310. Registered on 14 August 2015, Trials (Schwendicke et al., Trials 16:397, 2015) and COMET initiative online (COMET, 2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2256-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health

BACKGROUND

Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.To determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).To report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Gingivitis After 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation). Plaque Plaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months. Extrinsic tooth staining There was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months. Calculus Results for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive. Effect of concentration and frequency of rinsing There were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing. Other adverse effects The adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Löe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

BACKGROUND

Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment. Secondary objectiveTo explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns.For trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively').

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique).We considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs. Crowns versus fillingsAll studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies).Discomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence).It is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence). Crowns versus non-restorative caries treatmentOnly one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates. Metal crowns versus aesthetic crownsOne split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.

Outcomes in Trials for Management of Caries Lesions (OuTMaC): protocol

Background

Clinical trials on caries lesion management use an abundance of outcomes, hampering comparison or combination of different study results and their efficient translation into clinical practice. Core outcome sets are an agreed standardized collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific clinical area. We aim to develop a core outcome set for trials investigating management of caries lesions in primary or permanent teeth conducted in primary or secondary care encompassing all stages of disease.

Methods

To identify existing outcomes, trials on prevention and trials on management of caries lesions will be screened systematically in four databases. Screening, extraction and deduplication will be performed by two researchers until consensus is reached. The definition of the core outcome set will by based on an e-Delhi consensus process involving key stakeholders namely patients, dentists, clinical researchers, health economists, statisticians, policy-makers and industry representatives. For the first stage of the Delphi process, a patient panel and a separate panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, teachers, industry affiliated researchers, policy-makers, and other interested parties will be held. An inclusive approach will be taken to involve panelists from a wide variety of socio-economic and geographic backgrounds. Results from the first round will be summarized and fed back to individuals for the second round, where panels will be combined and allowed to modify their scoring in light of the full panel’s opinion. Necessity for a third round will be dependent on the outcome of the first two. Agreement will be measured via defined consensus rules; up to a maximum of seven outcomes. If resources allow, we will investigate features that influence decision making for different groups.

Discussion

By using an explicit, transparent and inclusive multi-step consensus process, the planned core outcome set should be justifiable, relevant and comprehensive. The dissemination and application of this core outcome set should improve clinical trials on managing caries lesions and allow comparison, synthesis and implementation of scientific data.

Trial registration

Registered 12 April 2015 at COMET (http://www.comet-initiative.org)

Triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes for oral health

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease and dental caries are highly prevalent oral diseases that can lead to pain and discomfort, oral hygiene and aesthetic problems, and eventually tooth loss, all of which can be costly to treat and are a burden to healthcare systems. Triclosan is an antibacterial agent with low toxicity, which, along with a copolymer for aiding retention, can be added to toothpastes to reduce plaque and gingivitis (inflammation of the gums). It is important that these additional ingredients do not interfere with the anticaries effect of the fluoride present in toothpastes, and that they are safe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of triclosan/copolymer containing fluoride toothpastes, compared with fluoride toothpastes, for the long-term control of caries, plaque and gingivitis in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 August 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 August 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 August 2013), and the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) (to 19 August 2013). We applied no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes on oral health.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria for this review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We attempted to contact study authors for missing information or clarification when feasible. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies (fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies), reporting mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies, analysing 14,835 participants, in this review. We assessed 10 studies (33%) as at low risk of bias, nine (30%) as at high risk of bias and 11 (37%) as unclear. Plaque Compared with control, after six to seven months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced plaque by 0.47 on a 0 to 5 scale (MD -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.34, 20 studies, 2675 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 2.17, representing a 22% reduction in plaque. After six to seven months of use, it also reduced the proportion of sites scoring 3 to 5 on a 0 to 5 scale by 0.15 (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.10, 13 studies, 1850 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.37, representing a 41% reduction in plaque severity. Gingivitis After six to nine months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced inflammation by 0.27 on a 0 to 3 scale (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.21, 20 studies, 2743 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 1.22, representing a 22% reduction in inflammation. After six to seven months of use, it reduced the proportion of bleeding sites (i.e. scoring 2 or 3 on the 0 to 3 scale) by 0.13 (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.08, 15 studies, 1998 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.27, representing a 48% reduction in bleeding. Periodontitis After 36 months of use, there was no evidence of a difference between triclosan/copolymer toothpaste and control in the development of periodontitis (attachment loss) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27, one study, 480 participants, low-quality evidence). Caries After 24 to 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste slightly reduced coronal caries when using the decayed and filled surfaces (DFS) index (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.02, four studies, 9692 participants, high-quality evidence). The control group mean was 3.44, representing a 5% reduction in coronal caries. After 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste probably reduced root caries (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.23, one study, 1357 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Calculus After six months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste may have reduced the mean total calculus per participant by 2.12 mm (MD -2.12 mm, 95% CI -3.39 to -0.84, two studies, 415 participants, low-quality evidence). The control group mean was 14.61 mm, representing a 15% reduction in calculus. Adverse effects There were no data available for meta-analysis regarding adverse effects, but 22 studies (73%) reported that there were no adverse effects caused by either the experimental or control toothpaste.There was considerable heterogeneity present in the meta-analyses for plaque, gingivitis and calculus. Plaque and gingivitis showed such consistent results that it did not affect our conclusions, but the reader may wish to interpret the results with more caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-quality evidence showing that toothpastes containing triclosan/copolymer, in addition to fluoride, reduced plaque, gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding when compared with fluoride toothpastes without triclosan/copolymer. These reductions may or may not be clinically important, and are evident regardless of initial plaque and gingivitis levels, or whether a baseline oral prophylaxis had taken place or not. High-quality evidence showed that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes lead to a small reduction in coronal caries. There was weaker evidence to show that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes may have reduced root caries and calculus, but insufficient evidence to show whether or not they prevented periodontitis. There do not appear to be any serious safety concerns regarding the use of triclosan/copolymer toothpastes in studies up to three years in duration.

Study suggests dentine bonding agents provided better relief from dentine hypersensitivity than a desensitising toothpaste

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised, controlled, single-blind, three-arm parallel-group trial set in general dental practice with a single general dental practitioner operator/assessor.

INTERVENTION

Seventy-five adult patients, with basic periodontal examination scores of 0 in all sextants, good oral hygiene, at least one sensitive tooth (not diagnosed as pulpitis) and willing to comply with the trial regime were entered into the trial and randomised. Seventy-two participants completed the study. The three interventions were; non-desensitising toothpaste (Colgate Cavity Protection Regular, Colgate-Palmolive, USA), desensitising toothpaste (Colgate Sensitive Fresh Stripe, Colgate-Palmolive, USA) and dentine bonding agent (Seal and Protect, Denpsly, USA). The non-desensitising toothpaste and desensitising toothpastes were provided to the subjects for use at home but dentine bonding agent was applied in the surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURE

Dentinal hypersensitivity was measured using a participant completed Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at baseline, two weeks, three months and six months. At baseline and six months a standardised air blast to the buccal cervical root stimulus was used with the VAS. At two weeks and at three months participants self-completed the VAS at home with no stimulus.

RESULTS

Although there was a reduction in dentinal hypersensitivity over time for all three groups, dentinal hypersensitivity reduced significantly (p<0.0001) in both desensitising toothpaste and dentine bonding agent groups. The mean VAS scores in the dentine bonding agent group were statistically significantly lower when compared to both non-desensitising toothpaste (p<0.001) and desensitising toothpaste (p<0.001). In addition, mean scores for non-desensitising toothpaste were higher than desensitising toothpaste (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dentine bonding agents provided the greatest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity at two weeks and six months. This reduction was greater than that achieved with the desensitising and non-desensitising toothpastes tested.

Accessing the best available evidence

This narrative review aims to highlight sources of the best available evidence and describe primary clinical trials currently taking place in primary dental care across the United Kingdom which will add to the evidence base.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To provide evidence-based dental care, dental professionals have to integrate the best available evidence, their clinical experience and their patients' values; this paper should help to identify user-friendly sources of the best available evidence.

Four implant bar-connected implants sufficient to support a maxillary overdenture

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

INTERVENTION

Edentulous patients aged at least 18 years with lack of retention and stability of the upper denture and lower denture were randomised to receive a maxillary overdenture supported by either four or six bar-connected implants.

OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was change of radiographic bone level. Secondary outcome measures were implant survival, overdenture survival and soft tissue conditions (plaque index, presence of calculus, gingiva index, sulcus bleeding index and pocket probing depth). These were scored at placement of the overdenture and after 12 months of loading. Patient satisfaction was also scored at baseline and at 12 months.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (one drop out) completed the one year follow-up. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.24 ± 0.32 mm in the four implants group and 0.25 ± 0.29 mm in the six implants group. Implant survival was 100% in the four implants group and 99.3% in the six implants group (one implant lost). Overdenture survival was 100% in both groups. There were no differences in the soft tissue outcomes between the groups. Patient satisfaction had improved in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After one year a bar-connected maxillary overdenture on four or six implants results in a comparable treatment outcome with high implant survival, healthy peri-implant tissues and high patient satisfaction. For reasons of cost-effectiveness, treatment with four bar-connected implants to support a maxillary overdenture is preferred.

Operative caries management in adults and children

BACKGROUND

The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I(2) = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I(2) = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation, and complete caries removal, and insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease between partial caries removal and complete caries removal. When partial caries removal was carried out there was also insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference in risk of restoration failure. The no dentinal caries removal studies investigating permanent teeth had a similar result with no difference in restoration failure. The other no dentinal caries removal study, which investigated primary teeth, showed a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up in most of the included studies and the high risk of bias, further high quality, long term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention. However, it should be noted that in studies of this nature, complete elimination of risk of bias may not necessarily be possible. Future research should also investigate patient centred outcomes.

Small trial finds beneficial effect for MI Paste in preventing white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment

STUDY DESIGN

Double blind randomised controlled trial

INTERVENTION

Sixty patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were randomised to receive either MI Paste Plus (GC America, Alsip III) or a placebo paste (Tom's of Main, Salisbury, UK). To be included, the patients had to be 12 years of age or over, in the permanent dentition, and be considered to be compliant with using the paste. Patients were excluded if they; had been undergoing extensive fluoride regimes, had an impacting medical or dental condition, had been receiving fluoride treatment for white spots, be planning to move within 6 months, or have an allergy to IgE casein. The pastes were self-administered in a fluoride tray for 3 to 5 minutes each night after brushing, for a period of 3 months.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were measured at baseline, then at 4, 8, and 12 weeks into treatment) using 2 measures. Standardised photographic records were used to assess WSLs using Banks and Richmond's decalcification index score, from first premolar to first premolar in the maxilla and mandible. Three operators scored the photographs independently. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) was used for the labial surfaces of the teeth and the scores (0-6) for surfaces were added together to give an overall score.

RESULTS

Five patients refused to participate before the trial began and out of the 60 patients randomised, 50 completed the study (26 MI Paste Plus group 24 in placebo group). There was a 53.5% in the enamel decalcification index score in the MI Paste Plus group but an increase of 91.1% in the placebo group at the end of the 12 week period; ICDAS scores were added together to give an overall score for all teeth; the MI Paste Plus group score was 145 at baseline and 80 after 12 weeks, a 44.8%reduction; in the placebo group, the scores were 116 and 166 respectively, an increase of 43%.

CONCLUSIONS

MI Paste Plus prevented and decreased the number of WSLs during orthodontic treatment with the placebo paste group having an increase in the number of WSLs during the trial. These effects were most noticeable on the gingival surfaces. Incisal enamel decalcification index scores were consistently higher than other tooth surfaces, including gingival.

No differences in gingival health associated outcomes following single-visit scale and polish

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised controlled three-arm parallel clinical trial set in general dental practice.

INTERVENTION

Three hundred and sixty-nine patients were recruited to the trial. To be included patients had to be regular attenders aged 18 to 60 years with 20 or more teeth and BPE codes <3 and DT<4. They were excluded if they wore an intra-oral applicance or had systemic conditions or used medication that could predispose to periodontal disease. Participants were randomised to have single-visit scale and polish at 6 month, 12 month or 24 month intervals and treatment was carried out by nine hygienists and therapists. Randomisation was performed centrally at a distant site by the trial manager and participants were not informed for their treatment allocation until they returned for their 6-month recall. Allocation was not explicitly revealed to the dentist, and participants were asked not to reveal their allocation group to the dentist or the outcome examiner.

OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome measure was presence of gingival bleeding. Secondary outcome measures were presence of plaque and presence and amount of calculus.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 83.5% of the original participants and 76.2% attended all five appointments. There were no statistically significant differences in prevalence of gingival bleeding at follow-up for each group: 6-month recall group 78.5%; 12-month group 78% and 24-month group 82% (p=0.746). There were also no differences between groups at follow-up for prevalence of plaque and calculus.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial did not identify any differences in gingival health associated outcomes for single-visit scale and polish provided at 6-, 12- and 24-month frequencies for healthy patients. However, the results are not conclusive and larger trials with more comprehensive measurements are needed.

The Audit Commission review of diabetes services in England and Wales, 1998-2001

AIMS OF THE AUDIT COMMISSION: The Audit Commission has a statutory duty to promote the best use of public money. It does this through value for money studies, such as that reported in Testing Times[1]. This work has been followed with a review of innovative practice in commissioning. These initiatives aim to support the implementation of the diabetes national service framework. The Audit Commission also appoints external auditors to NHS organizations who assess probity and value for money in the NHS; the latter by applying national studies locally and by carrying out local studies.

METHODS

Research for Testing Times consisted of structured visits to nine acute trusts, a telephone survey of 26 health authorities and a postal survey of 1400 people with diabetes and 250 general practitioners. Local audits used a subset of the original research tools. Case studies were identified through a cascade approach to contacts established during Testing Times and through self-nomination.

RESULTS

Rising numbers of people with diabetes are placing increasing pressure on hospital services. Some health authorities and primary care organizations have reviewed patterns of service provision in the light of the increasing demands. These reviews show wide variations in patterns of routine care. In addition, there is a widespread lack of data on the delivery of structured care to people with diabetes. People with diabetes report delays in gaining access to services, and insufficient time with staff. There are insufficient arrangements in place for providing information and learning opportunities to support self-management.

CONCLUSION

As the number of people with diabetes continues to rise, the potential for providing more care in a primary care setting needs to be explored. This will enable specialist services to focus more effectively on those with the most complex needs.

Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: a case study on the interface between primary and secondary care

Since 1991 the NHS has attempted to identify and prioritise its needs for research and development in a systematic manner. This has not been done before and there is little evidence on which to draw. Multidisciplinary expert groups have identified priorities in different topics using explicit criteria and after widespread consultation within the NHS and research community to identify pressing problems and opportunities for research. This paper focuses on a review completed in 1993 to identify research and development priorities for the NHS in relation to the interface between primary and secondary care. The review covered several recent developments which require evaluation. The authors describe the process used to identify research and development priorities in this complex subject and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. This case study should help to stimulate a wider debate on methods of identifying priorities, particularly those using participatory approaches, in research and non-research contexts.

The Amazons within: women in the BMA 100 years ago

Images