Background: Dental disease and treatment experience can negatively affect the oral health related quality of life (OHRQL) of preschool aged children and their caregivers. Currently no valid and reliable instrument is available to measure these negative influences in very young children. The objective of this research was to develop the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) to measure the OHRQL of preschool children and their families.

The new REALD-30 instrument displays good reliability but only partial validity. Results suggest that dental health literacy may be distinct from medical health literacy and may have an independent effect on dental health outcomes.

No abstract

The extent and severity of periodontal attachment loss are described for a random sample of 690 dentate community-dwelling adults, aged 65 or over, residing in five counties in North Carolina. In addition, risk indicators for serious levels of loss of attachment and pocket depth in this population are presented. Pocket depths and recession were measured on all teeth by trained examines during household visits. Blacks had an average of 78% of their sites with attachment loss and the average level of loss in those sites was approximately 4 mm, as compared to 65% and 3.1 min for whites. Because the extent and severity scores in this population were much higher than in younger groups, a serious condition in this group was defined as having 4+ sites of loss of attachment of 5+ mm with one or more of those sites having a pocket of 4+ mm. Bivariate analyses identified a large number of explanatory variables that were associated with increased likelihood of having the more serious periodontal condition. The logistic regression model for blacks includes the following important explanatory variables and associated odds ratios: use to tobacco (2.9), colony counts of B. gingivalis greater than 2% (2.4) and B. intermedius greater than 2% (1.9), last visit to the dentist greater than 3 years (2.3), and gums bleeding in the last 2 weeks (3.9). The model for whites indicated that tobacco use (6.2), presence of B. gingivalis (2.4) and the combined variable of having not been to the dentist in the last 3 years and having a high BANA score (16.8) were important explanatory variables.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Objective The intent of the study was to develop and validate a comparable health literacy test for Spanish-speaking and English-speaking populations. Study Design The design of the instrument, named the Short Assessment of Health Literacy-Spanish and English (SAHL-S&E), combined a word recognition test, as appearing in the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), and a comprehension test using multiple-choice questions designed by an expert panel. We employed the item response theory in developing and validating the instrument. Data Collection Validation of SAHL-S&E involved testing and comparing the instrument with other health literacy instruments in a sample of 201 Spanish-speaking and 202 English-speaking subjects recruited from the Ambulatory Care Center at the University of North Carolina Healthcare System. Principal Findings Based on item response theory analysis, 18 items were retained in the comparable test. The Spanish version of the test, SAHL-S, was highly correlated with another Spanish health literacy instrument, SAHLSA (r = 0.88, p < 0.05). The English version, SAHL-E, had high correlations with REALM (r = 0.94, p < 0.05) and the English Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (r = 0.68, p < 0.05). Significant correlations were found between SAHL-S&E and years of schooling in both Spanish and English-speaking samples (r = 0.15 and r = 0.39, respectively). SAHL-S&E displayed satisfactory reliability of 0.80 and 0.89 in the Spanish and English-speaking samples, respectively. IRT analysis indicated that the SAHL-S&E score was highly reliable for individuals with a low level of health literacy. Conclusions The new instrument, SAHL-S&E, has good reliability and validity. It is particularly useful for identifying individuals with low health literacy and could be used in clinical or community settings to screen for low health literacy among Spanish and English speakers.

A barrier to providing sealants is concern about inadvertently sealing over caries. This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of sealants in preventing caries progression. We searched electronic databases for comparative studies examining caries progression in sealed permanent teeth. We used a random-effects model to estimate percentage reduction in the probability of caries progression in sealed vs. unsealed carious teeth. Six studies, including 4 randomized-controlled trials (RCT) judged to be of fair quality, were included in the analysis (384 persons, 840 teeth, and 1090 surfaces). The median annual percentage of non-cavitated lesions progressing was 2.6% for sealed and 12.6% for unsealed carious teeth. The summary prevented fraction for RCT was 71.3% (95%CI: 52.8%-82.5, no heterogeneity) up to 5 years after placement. Despite variation among studies in design and conduct, sensitivity analysis found the effect to be consistent in size and direction. Sealing non-cavitated caries in permanent teeth is effective in reducing caries progression.

No abstract

TOFHLiD demonstrates good convergent validity but only moderate ability to discriminate between dental and medical health literacy. Its predictive validity is only partially established, and internal consistency just meets the threshold for acceptability. Results provide solid support for more research, but not widespread use in clinical or public health practice.