Search

Additional file 2. Participant consent form.

Additional file 1. Participant information leaflet (PIL).

Additional file 1. Patient information leaflet.

Additional file 2. Consent forms.

Background: A three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA).Methods: Data on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.Results: A total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (- 0.06; 97.5% CI: - 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (- 0.14; 97.5% CI: - 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P.Conclusions: The mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%.Trial registration: The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 06/35/99) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Background: Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group’s systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. Methods: This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. Discussion: INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice. Publisher PDF

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library (to Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 1 June 2010) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing agents prescribed to treat oral mucositis in people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both. Outcomes were oral mucositis, time to heal mucositis, oral pain, duration of pain control, dysphagia, systemic infection, amount of analgesia, length of hospitalisation, cost and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation, blindness and withdrawals. Risk of bias assessment was carried out on six domains. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratio (RR) values calculated using fixed-effect models (less than 3 trials in each meta-analysis). MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two trials involving 1505 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three comparisons for mucositis treatment including two or more trials were: benzydamine HCl versus placebo, sucralfate versus placebo and low level laser versus sham procedure. Only the low level laser showed a reduction in severe mucositis when compared with the sham procedure, RR 5.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30 to 12.13).Only 3 comparisons included more than one trial for pain control: patient controlled analgesia (PCA) compared to the continuous infusion method, therapist versus control, cognitive behaviour therapy versus control. There was no evidence of a difference in mean pain score between PCA and continuous infusion, however, less opiate was used per hour for PCA, mean difference 0.65 mg/hour (95% CI 0.09 to 1.20), and the duration of pain was less 1.9 days (95% CI 0.3 to 3.5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is weak and unreliable evidence that low level laser treatment reduces the severity of the mucositis. Less opiate is used for PCA versus continuous infusion. Further, well designed, placebo or no treatment controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions investigated in this review and new interventions for treating mucositis are needed.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.