One-to-one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour

Harris, Rebecca; Gamboa, A; Dailey, Yvonne; Ashcroft, Angela

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006540.pub2

Cited by 98 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The limitations of health education and lack of strong evidence for one-to-one dietary interventions in producing sustained behaviour change have been documented. 52,89 Owing to ethical and pragmatic constraints, the trial did not have an arm in which children received no intervention, so we cannot infer that preventative care provided in general dental practice is ineffective. Instead we compared the costs and effects of an enhanced prevention regime with a proxy for 'usual practice'.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial

Tickle

O’Neill

Donaldson

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDental caries is the most common disease of childhood. The NHS guidelines promote preventative care in dental practices, particularly for young children. However, the cost-effectiveness of this policy has not been established.ObjectiveTo measure the effects and costs of a composite fluoride intervention designed to prevent caries in young children attending dental services.DesignThe study was a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1 : 1. Randomisation was by clinical trials unit, using randomised permuted blocks. Children/families were not blinded; however, outcome assessment was blinded to group assessment.SettingThe study took place in 22 NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland, UK.ParticipantsThe study participants were children aged 2–3 years, who were caries free at baseline.InterventionsThe intervention was composite in nature, comprising a varnish containing 22,600 parts per million (p.p.m.) fluoride, a toothbrush and a 50-ml tube of toothpaste containing 1450 p.p.m. fluoride; plus standardised, evidence-based prevention advice provided at 6-monthly intervals over 3 years. The control group received the prevention advice alone.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were the number of decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces in primary dentition (dmfs) in caries-active children, the number of episodes of pain, the number of extracted teeth and the costs of care. Adverse reactions (ARs) were recorded.ResultsA total of 1248 children (624 randomised to each group) were recruited and 1096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. A total of 87% of the intervention children and 85% of control children attended every 6-month visit (p = 0.77). In total, 187 (34%) children in the intervention group converted to caries active, compared with 213 (39%) in the control group [odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04;p = 0.11]. The mean number of tooth surfaces affected by caries was 7.2 in the intervention group, compared with 9.6 in the control group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups (p = 0.81). However, 164 out of the total of 400 (41%) children who converted to caries active reported toothache, compared with 62 out of 696 (9%) caries-free children (OR 7.1 95% CI 5.1 to 9.9;p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children (p = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had ARs of a minor nature. The average direct dental care cost was £155.74 for the intervention group and £48.21 for the control group over 3 years (p < 0.05). The mean cost per carious surface avoided over the 3 years was estimated at £251.00.LimitationsThe usual limitations of a trial such as generalisability and understanding the underlying reasons for the outcomes apply. There is no mean willingness-to-pay threshold available to enable assessment of value for money.ConclusionsA statistically significant effect could not be demonstrated for the primary outcome. Once caries develop, pain is likely. There was a statistically significant difference in dmfs in caries-active children in favour of the intervention. Although adequately powered, the effect size of the intervention was small and of questionable clinical and economic benefit.Future workFuture work should assess the caries prevention effects of interventions to reduce sugar consumption at the population and individual levels. Interventions designed to arrest the disease once it is established need to be developed and tested in practice.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN36180119 and EudraCT 2009-010725-39.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Changing behaviour is notoriously difficult, 52,89 at least without a restriction of the availability of sugar in the environment. Legislative, regulatory and fiscal interventions have a stronger evidence base for changing behaviour than interventions applied to individuals.…”

Section: Implications For Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial

Tickle

O’Neill

Donaldson

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The available evidence on the effects of dietary interventions in a dental setting has shown that there is limited or even no efficacy on caries experience, which is explained mainly by the lack of compliance (Harris et al 2012).…”

Section: Are Periodontal Diseases Related To Diet? If So What Are Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction of lifestyle, behaviour or systemic diseases with dental caries and periodontal diseases: consensus report of group 2 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases

Chapple

Bouchard

Cagetti

et al. 2017

J Clinic Periodontology

377

369

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periodontal diseases and dental caries are the most common diseases of humans and the main cause of tooth loss. Both diseases can lead to nutritional compromise and negative impacts upon self‐esteem and quality of life. As complex chronic diseases, they share common risk factors, such as a requirement for a pathogenic plaque biofilm, yet they exhibit distinct pathophysiologies. Multiple exposures contribute to their causal pathways, and susceptibility involves risk factors that are inherited (e.g. genetic variants), and those that are acquired (e.g. socio‐economic factors, biofilm load or composition, smoking, carbohydrate intake). Identification of these factors is crucial in the prevention of both diseases as well as in their management. Aim To systematically appraise the scientific literature to identify potential risk factors for caries and periodontal diseases. Methods One systematic review (genetic risk factors), one narrative review (role of diet and nutrition) and reference documentation for modifiable acquired risk factors common to both disease groups, formed the basis of the report. Results & Conclusions There is moderately strong evidence for a genetic contribution to periodontal diseases and caries susceptibility, with an attributable risk estimated to be up to 50%. The genetics literature for periodontal disease is more substantial than for caries and genes associated with chronic periodontitis are the vitamin D receptor (VDR), Fc gamma receptor IIA (Fc‐γRIIA) and Interleukin 10 (IL10) genes. For caries, genes involved in enamel formation (AMELX, AMBN, ENAM, TUFT, MMP20, and KLK4), salivary characteristics (AQP5), immune regulation and dietary preferences had the largest impact. No common genetic variants were found. Fermentable carbohydrates (sugars and starches) were the most relevant common dietary risk factor for both diseases, but associated mechanisms differed. In caries, the fermentation process leads to acid production and the generation of biofilm components such as Glucans. In periodontitis, glycaemia drives oxidative stress and advanced glycation end‐products may also trigger a hyper inflammatory state. Micronutrient deficiencies, such as for vitamin C, vitamin D or vitamin B12, may be related to the onset and progression of both diseases. Functional foods or probiotics could be helpful in caries prevention and periodontal disease management, although evidence is limited and biological mechanisms not fully elucidated. Hyposalivation, rheumatoid arthritis, smoking/tobacco use, undiagnosed or sub‐optimally controlled diabetes and obesity are common acquired risk factors for both caries and periodontal diseases.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have provided evidence that one-to-one dietary interventions in the dental setting can change the behavior of practitioners and patients [15]. The American Dietetic Association recommends collaboration between dietetics and dental professionals for oral health promotion and disease prevention and intervention [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentists’ Dietary Perception and Practice Patterns in a Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Yokoyama

Kakudate

Sumida³

et al. 2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDental caries are largely preventable, and epidemiological evidence for a relationship between diet and oral health is abundant. To date, however, dentists’ perceptions about the role of diet and dentists’ practice patterns regarding diet counseling have not been clarified.ObjectiveThe purposes of this study were to: (1) examine discordance between dentists’ perception of the importance of diet in caries treatment planning and their actual provision of diet counseling to patients, and (2) identify dentists’ characteristics associated with their provision of diet counseling.DesignThe study used a cross-sectional study design consisting of a questionnaire survey in Japan.ParticipantsThe study queried dentists working in outpatient dental practices who were affiliated with the Dental Practice-Based Research Network Japan (JDPBRN), which aims to allow dentists to investigate research questions and share experiences and expertise (n = 282).MeasurementDentists were asked about their perceptions on the importance of diet and their practice patterns regarding diet counseling, as well as patient, practice, and dentist background data.ResultsThe majority of participants (n = 116, 63%) recognized that diet is “more important” to oral health. However, among participants who think diet is “more important” (n = 116), only 48% (n = 56) provide diet counseling to more than 20% of their patients. Multiple logistic regression analysis suggested that several variables were associated with providing diet counseling; dentist gender, practice busyness, percentage of patients interested in caries prevention, caries risk assessment, and percentage of patients who receive blood pressure screening.ConclusionsSome discordance exists between dentists’ perception of the importance of diet in caries treatment planning and their actual practice pattern regarding diet counseling to patients. Reducing this discordance may require additional dentist education, including nutritional and systemic disease concepts; patient education to increase perception of the importance of caries prevention; or removing barriers to practices’ implementation of counseling.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01680848

show abstract

One-to-one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour

Abstract: One-to-one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour (Review)

Cited by 98 publications

References 77 publications

A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial

A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial

Interaction of lifestyle, behaviour or systemic diseases with dental caries and periodontal diseases: consensus report of group 2 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases

Dentists’ Dietary Perception and Practice Patterns in a Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About