Background A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs presents evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding professionally applied and prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents for caries prevention. These recommendations are an update of the 2006 ADA recommendations regarding professionally applied topical fluoride and were developed by using a new process that includes conducting a systematic review of primary studies. Types of Studies Reviewed The authors conducted a search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials of professionally applied and prescription-strength topical fluoride agents—including mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, foams and pastes—with caries increment outcomes published in English through October 2012. Results The panel included 71 trials from 82 articles in its review and assessed the efficacy of various topical fluoride caries-preventive agents. The panel makes recommendations for further research. Practical Implications The panel recommends the following for people at risk of developing dental caries: 2.26 percent fluoride varnish or 1.23 percent fluoride (acidulated phosphate fluoride) gel, or a prescription-strength, home-use 0.5 percent fluoride gel or paste or 0.09 percent fluoride mouthrinse for patients 6 years or older. Only 2.26 percent fluoride varnish is recommended for children younger than 6 years. The strengths of the recommendations for the recommended products varied from “in favor” to “expert opinion for.” As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences.

The 2003-04 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) was a collaborative effort involving 28 federal funding partners with the National Center for Health Statistics. The collaborators for the 2003-04 NHANES oral health component included the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Oral Health. Oral health data are available on 8272 persons aged 2 years or older. This report provides an overview of the 2003-04 oral health component including content descriptions and procedures for oral health assessments conducted for the first time in a national survey in the United States. These assessments include posterior functional contacts, tooth wear, and oral health-related quality of life. This report also provides evaluations of data quality in terms of examiner reliability statistics (percent agreements, kappas, and correlation coefficients) for various NHANES 2003-04 oral health examination components and analytical recommendations for producing 6-year estimates using the previous two NHANES data collection components (1999-2000 and 2001-02).

This study failed to demonstrate dental staining, enamel hypoplasia, or tooth color differences among children who received short-term courses of doxycycline at <8 years of age. Healthcare provider confidence in use of doxycycline for suspected RMSF in children may be improved by modifying the drug's label.

This paper describes tools used to measure periodontal diseases and the integration of these tools into surveillance systems. Tools to measure periodontal diseases at the surveillance level have focussed on current manifestations of disease (e.g. gingival inflammation) or disease sequelae (e.g. periodontal pocket depth or loss of attachment). All tools reviewed in this paper were developed based on the state of the science of the pathophysiology of periodontal disease at the time of their design and the need to provide valid and reliable measurements of the presence and severity of periodontal diseases. Therefore, some of these tools are no longer valid. Others, such as loss of periodontal attachment, are the current de‐facto tools but demand many resources to undertake periodical assessment of the periodontal health of populations. Less complex tools such as the Community Periodontal Index, have been used extensively to report periodontal status. Laboratory tests for detecting putative microorganisms or inflammatory agents present in periodontal diseases have been used at the clinical level, and at least one has been tested at the population level. Other approaches, such as self‐report measures, are currently under validation. In this paper, we do not review indices designed to measure plaque or residual accumulation around the tooth, indices focussed only on gingival inflammation or radiographic approaches with limited applicability in surveillance systems. Finally, we review current case‐definitions proposed for surveillance of periodontal disease severity.