BackgroundAs a recognised effective and economical agent for dental caries prevention, fluoride has been used in many different fluoridation schemes implemented across the world. Considering the narrow ‘dose-gap’ between the benefit of caries reduction and the risk of dental fluorosis, it is recommended that fluoride intake is monitored by measuring urinary fluoride excretion. The aim of this scoping review is to map the current literature/evidence on fluoride intake and excretion studies in relation to the study population, settings, type of study design, methodology, and analytical approach.MethodsEmbase/Ovid, MEDLINE/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO, Scopus/Elsevier were searched for relevant articles until April 2018. Studies were included if they reported intake and excretion of fluoride in healthy humans of all age groups. Findings were explored using a narrative synthesis to summarise studies characteristics and outcome measures.ResultsRemoval of duplicates from the originally 2295 identified records yielded 1093 studies of which 206 articles were included. Only 21.6% of the studies were conducted in children (<8-year-olds). Most studies (38.8%) used drinking water concentration as a proxy for fluoride intake, whereas only 11.7% measured fluoride intake from all sources. Of the 72 studies that measured dietary fluoride intake, only 10 reported the validity of the employed dietary assessment method. Only 14 studies validated the urine sample collection methods. No information on the validity of the employed analytical method was reported by the majority (64.6%) of studies. Only a small proportion (8.7%) of the included studies investigated the association between fluoride intake and excretion.ConclusionThe findings reveal much variability in terms of conducting the studies and reporting the findings, illustrating a high heterogeneity in data collection across settings and populations. Future studies should provide more detail on sampling technique, measurement protocols (including validation), and on clearly defining the relationship between intake and urinary excretion of fluoride.

Aim: To evaluate web search engines' informational content regarding Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) when accessed from the UK.Methods: The search engine result pages (SERPs) regarding CWF from Google were identified, the content was analysed for themes and sentiments, and Google Trends information on CWF was examined.Results: The SERPs were predominantly in favour of CWF. Anti-fluoridation themes were observed in SERPs that presented the arguments supporting and opposing CWF with equanimity, irrespective of the quality of scientific evidence. Hence, a web search for CWF yields conflicting information.Correlation is observed between current affairs and public interest in CWF.Conclusion: UK residents seeking online CWF advice may experience confusion due to the prevalent conflicting information, which may influence their decision-making. Dental health professionals, Public health practitioners and policymakers should strive to improve the information provision on CWF online.

Background: Every effort needs to be made to better understand the current state of practice and trends relating to root caries management which will be of benefit to dentists universally in the practice of dentistry. Aim: This article presents a multicountry questionnaire survey of the current state of practice in the management of root caries among dentists in nine different countries to get a wider range of opinions and perspectives. Methodology: A questionnaire related to root surface caries was distributed among practicing dentists in nine different countries, namely the United Kingdom, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Brazil, India, Malaysia, and Iraq. Questionnaire responses were analyzed, and the results were compared among groups. Results: The results showed statistically significant differences among dentists in most questionnaire aspects. Bleeding is the greatest obstacle facing dentists when restoring root surface lesions. Reported survival rates reflect uncertainty about the material and/or approach of choice in the management of root surface caries. Conclusion: This questionnaire survey revealed the current status of management of root surface caries in clinical practice in various countries. Substantial attention is required to bridge the knowledge gap and address the current void of uncertainty as relates to root caries management by providing a common ground for communication between dentists from all around the globe. In all, this work found a degree of consensus at the international level on what appears to work well among the dental practices surveyed and identified several issues with existing approaches that need to be addressed in future studies.

Background: The potential of an improved understanding to prevent and treat a complex oral condition such as root caries is important, given its correlation with multiple factors and the uncertainty surrounding the approach/material of choice. Deeper insights into risk factors may improve the quality of treatment and reduce the formation of root surface caries. Aim: The present work aims to gain knowledge about dentists’ opinions and experiences on assessing the risk factor related to the development of root caries and to help identify any overlooked factors that may contribute to less efficacious clinical outcomes. Methodology: A questionnaire related to root surface caries was distributed among practicing dentists in nine different countries, namely the United Kingdom, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Brazil, India, Malaysia, and Iraq. Questionnaire responses were analyzed, and the results were compared among the groups. Results: Dentists around the world ranked the oral hygiene status of patients as the most important factor in the development of root surface caries. Patients with poor oral hygiene, active periodontal disease, reduced salivary flow, and gingival recession are perceived to have a higher risk of developing new root surface caries. There is a greater focus on prevention in the UK and greater levels of untreated dental disease in other countries, especially those recovering from civil wars. Conclusion: This work identified some overlooked factors that may have contributed to the less efficacious clinical outcomes reported in the literature. It is hoped that this deep dive into risk factors coupled with the findings presented in Part I of this study will be used as a basis for a more comprehensive investigation into the management of patients with root surface caries.