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.
Objective: To compare young people’s experiences of wearing a range of orthodontic appliances. Design: A cross-sectional, qualitative study with purposive sampling. Setting: UK dental teaching hospital. Participants: Twenty-six orthodontic patients aged 11–17 years. Methods: Patients participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: Young people reported physical, practical and emotional impacts from their appliances. Despite these reported impacts, participants described ‘getting used’ to and, therefore, not being bothered by their appliance. Framework analysis of the data identified a multi-dimensional social process of managing everyday life with an appliance. This involves addressing the ‘dys-appearance’ of the body through physically adapting to an appliance. This process also includes psychological approaches, drawing on social networks, developing strategies and situating experiences in a longer-term context. Engaging in this process allowed young people to address the physical, practical and emotional impacts of their appliances. Conclusion: This qualitative research has identified how young people manage everyday life with an appliance. Understanding this process will help orthodontists to support their patients.
The theory explains why the loss of a single tooth might be experienced as traumatic but also why older people adapt to their changing oral health. Oral health in older age represented a lifetime's investment in oral care. Future health policies should consider this lifetime investment when considering care for older people.
The mouth may be presented and understood in different ways, be subject to judgement by others and, as we age, may intrude on everyday life due to problems that affect oral health. However, research that considers older people's experiences concerning their mouths and teeth is limited. This paper reports on qualitative research with 43 people in England and Scotland, aged 65–91, exploring the significance of the mouth over the lifecourse. It uses the concept of ‘mouth talk’ to explore narratives of maintaining, losing and replacing teeth. Participants engaged in ‘mouth talk’ to downplay the impact of the mouth, demonstrate socially appropriate ageing, and distance themselves from ‘real’ old age by retaining a moral identity and sense of self. They also found means to challenge dominant discourses of ageing in how they spoke about missing teeth. Referring to Leder's notion of ‘dys-appearance’ and Gilleard and Higgs’ work on the social imaginary of the fourth age, the study illustrates the ways in which ‘mouth talk’ can contribute to sustaining a sense of self in later life, presenting the ageing mouth, with and without teeth, as an absent presence. It also argues for the importance of listening to stories of the mouth in order to expand understanding of people's approaches to oral health in older age.
Background The lack of evidence for the effective management of carious lesions in children’s primary teeth has caused uncertainty for the dental profession and patients. Possible approaches include conventional and biological management alongside best practice prevention, and best practice prevention alone. The FiCTION trial assessed the effectiveness of these options, and included a qualitative study exploring dental professionals’ (DPs) experiences of delivering the different treatment arms. This paper reports on how DPs managed children with carious lesions within FiCTION and how this related to their everyday experiences of doing dentistry. Methods Overall, 31 DPs from FiCTION-trained dental surgeries in four regions of the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of the three treatment arms (conventional management of carious lesions and prevention (C + P), biological management of carious lesions and prevention (B + P) or prevention alone (PA)). A theoretical framework, drawing on social practice theory (SPT), was developed for analysis. Results Participants discussed perceived effectiveness of, and familiarity with, the three techniques. The C + P arm was familiar, but some participants questioned the effectiveness of conventional restorations. Attitudes towards the B + P arm varied in terms of familiarity, but once DPs were introduced to the techniques, this was seen as effective. While prevention was familiar, PA was described as ineffective. DPs manage children with carious lesions day-to-day, drawing on previous experience and knowledge of the child to provide what they view as the most appropriate treatment in the best interests of each child. Randomisation undermined these normal choices. Several DPs reported deviating from the trial arms in order to treat a patient in a particular way. Participants valued evidence-based dentistry, and expect to use the results of FiCTION to inform future practice. They anticipate continuing to use the full range of treatment options, and to personally select appropriate strategies for individual children. Conclusions RCTs take place in the context of day-to-day practices of doing dentistry. DPs employ experiential and interpersonal knowledge to act in the best interests of their patients. Randomisation within a clinical trial can present a source of tension for DPs, which has implications for assuring individual equipoise in future trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.