Search

Introduction: Dental caries, gum disease, and tooth loss are all preventable conditions. However, many dental care systems remain treatment oriented rather than prevention oriented. This promotes the treatment of oral diseases over preventive treatments and advice. Exploring barriers to prevention and understanding the requirements of a paradigm shift are the first steps toward delivering quality prevention-focused health care., Objectives: To qualitatively explore perceived barriers and facilitators to oral disease prevention from a multistakeholder perspective across 6 European countries., Methods: A total of 58 interviews and 13 focus groups were undertaken involving 149 participants from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Hungary. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in each country in its native language between March 2016 and September 2017. Participants were patients ( n = 50), dental team members ( n = 39), dental policy makers( n = 33), and dental insurers ( n = 27). The audio was transcribed, translated, and analyzed via deductive thematic analysis., Results: Five broad themes emerged that were both barriers and facilitators: dental regulation, who provides prevention, knowledge and motivation, trust, and person-level factors. Each theme was touched on in all countries; however, cross-country differences were evident surrounding the magnitude of each theme., Conclusion: Despite the different strengths and weaknesses among the systems, those who deliver, organize, and utilize each system experience similar barriers to prevention. The findings suggest that across all 6 countries, prevention in oral health care is hindered by a complex interplay of factors, with no particular dental health system offering overall greater user satisfaction. Underlying the themes were sentiments of blame, whereby each group appeared to shift responsibility for prevention to other groups. To bring about change, greater teamwork is needed in the commissioning of prevention to engender its increased value by all stakeholders within the dental system., Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results from this study provide an initial first step for those interested in exploring and working toward the paradigm shift to preventive focused dentistry. We also hope that these findings will encourage more research exploring the complex relationship among dental stakeholders, with a view to overcoming the barriers. In particular, these findings may be of use to dental public health researchers, dentists, and policy makers concerned with the prevention of oral diseases.

This multicenter 3-arm, parallel-group, patient-randomized controlled trial compared clinical effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies over 3 y for managing dental caries in primary teeth in UK primary dental care. Participants aged 3 to 7 y with at least 1 primary molar with dentinal carious lesion were randomized across 3 arms (1:1:1 via centrally administered system with variable-length random permuted blocks): C+P, conventional carious lesion management (complete carious tooth tissue removal and restoration placement) with prevention; B+P, biological management (sealing in carious tooth tissue restoratively) with prevention; and PA, prevention alone (diet, plaque removal, fluorides, and fissure sealants). Parents, children, and dentists were not blind to allocated arm. Co-primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection and 2) the number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection during follow-up (minimum, 23 mo). In sum, 1,144 participants were randomized (C+P, n = 386; B+P, n = 381; PA, n = 377) by 72 general dental practitioners, of whom 1,058 (C+P, n = 352; B+P, n = 352; PA, n = 354) attended at least 1 study visit and were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 33.8 mo (interquartile range, 23.8 to 36.7). Proportions of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 42%; B+P, 40%; PA, 45%. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dental pain and/or infection when B+P (adjusted risk difference [97.5% CI]: -2% [-10% to 6%]) or PA (4% [-4% to 12%]) was compared with C+P. The mean (SD) number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 0.62 (0.95); B+P, 0.58 (0.87); and PA, 0.72 (0.98). Superiority could not be concluded for number of episodes between B+P (adjusted incident rate ratio (97.5% CI): 0.95 [0.75 to 1.21]) or PA (1.18 [0.94 to 1.48]) and C+P. In conclusion, there was no evidence of a difference among the 3 treatment approaches for incidence or number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection experienced by these participants with high caries risk and established disease (trial registration: ISRCTN77044005).

Objective: To explore barriers and facilitators to oral disease prevention in Danish dental care from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Methods: Eleven semi-structured focus groups and interviews about Danish oral healthcare were conducted with 27 stakeholders (general public, dental teams, dental policy makers) in Copenhagen. Transcripts were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis independently by KR and HL, supervised by JC and KVC. Results: Seven broad themes were identified, including both barriers and facilitators: Knowledge and attitudes, Education and training, Regulation, Incentivization, Multidisciplinary approach, Access to care and the Dental professional-patient relationship. Whilst all themes were relevant to each group of stakeholders, the salient driver within each theme was different for each group. Conclusions: Stakeholder perspectives on the Danish Oral health care system suggest the following are important features for a preventively focused system: (a) Involving all stakeholders in oral healthcare planning. (b) Securing sufficient and ongoing briefing regarding disease prevention for all stakeholders. (c) Regulatory support and creation of incentives to promote and facilitate implementation of disease prevention. (d) Appropriate prevention for disadvantaged groups within society which may be possible to a higher degree by means of multidisciplinary collaboration. (e) Personal relations between the patient and the professional based on mutual trust.

Data from the Adult Dental Survey conducted in 2009/10 have recorded some major changes in the pattern of oral conditions in British adults. The change in the number of sound and untreated teeth in recent decades has been particularly marked in younger adults. Across all ages there were 17.9 sound and untreated teeth per dentate adult, but among the youngest (16-24-year-olds) it was 26.9 teeth indicating rapidly improving prospects for young adults compared with their predecessors. Between 1998 and 2009 the overall prevalence of caries of all types in England has fallen dramatically from 54% to 31% overall, but the number of teeth affected by caries among those people affected by decay is almost unchanged at around 2.7 affected teeth per person. Caries, and the reduction in caries, affected people of all ages. The rate of new restorations is correspondingly low and young adults in particular had fewer restorations than their predecessors. Much activity is now likely to be around repairing or extending existing restorations. By contrast 37% of dentate adults had crowns, up from 34% in 1998, averaging around three crowns per person among those who have crowns. A minority of British adults had a very healthy periodontal status (17%) and moderate periodontal disease (pockets of 4 mm to less than 6 mm) has also reduced markedly in the last decade, in line with measurably less plaque and more frequent brushing. However, more severe disease has increased slightly (from 6% to 9% of adults). The frequency of impact of poor oral health on people's lives has also reduced in the last decade. However, while clinical conditions are improving, there is a proportion of dentate adults that experience negative effects on their daily life frequently (16%) and/or severely (17%) due to their oral health; who are more likely to be those in a lower socioeconomic position and those with worse clinical status in terms of caries and periodontal disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]