These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: School dental screening does not increase dental attendance rates or reduce disease levels.
    Author: Rodgers J.
    Journal: Evid Based Dent; 2007; 8(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 17380170.
    Abstract:
    DESIGN: This was a cluster randomised controlled trial, in which the unit of randomisation was the school. INTERVENTION: Three models of screening were tested against a control. A 'new' model of school dental screening incorporated a consensus view, from clinicians in the northwest of England, on a set of clinical criteria that would prompt a referral following a screening examination. A 'traditional' model involved the delivery of the existing school dental screening programme according to the principle that a child is referred if, in the opinion of the screening dentist, dental care is required. The third intervention tested was a dental information leaflet, distributed via the schools, which encouraged parents to examine their child's mouth and to take their child to a dentist if any problems were noted. Children a ttending the control schools received no intervention during the study period. OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measures were prevalence of teeth with active caries and mean number of teeth with active caries in the permanent or primary dentition. Secondary outcome measures were prevalence of oral sepsis, gross plaque or calculus, and dental trauma to incisor teeth. RESULTS: Seventeen thousand and ninety-eight children in 169 clusters (schools) were eligible for inclusion in the study. One school was withdrawn from the study because of failure to agree to follow the trial protocol. Of the total, 15 004 children were available for baseline examination in 168 schools and 13 570 children received a baseline and outcome examination, representing 80.5% of the eligible population. After adjustment for clustering of children in schools, there was no significant difference in the reduction from baseline in untreated caries between the study groups in either the primary or permanent dentition. Similarly there were no significant differences across the four arms of the study in the secondary outcome measures of prevalence of sepsis, presence of gross plaque or calculus, and trauma to the permanent incisor teeth. In the traditional arms, 42% of children attended a dentist during the study period, with 41% in the new-model arm, 37% in the information-leaflet arm and 38% in the control arm. Although more children in the traditional and new-model arms of the study attended a dental appointment these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: School dental screening delivered according to three different models was not effective at reducing levels of active caries and increasing dental attendance in the population under study.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]