Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Abstract

There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at 6-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Dental Attendance and Caries Experience among Children of Newcomers

“…This finding supports other studies that predict decisions to utilize dental care [9,10]. This highlights the importance of oral health education and promotion programs targeting both attitude and PBC toward dental attendance [19]. Interestingly, the subjective norm construct did not predict intention.…”

“…Although a routine biannual dental visit is the most recommended practice, this practice has been challenged because of the lack of evidence [4]. Multiple Cochrane reviews concluded that there is the lack of evidence to support or refute the benefits of dental check-ups every 6 months or to demonstrate any harmful effects of longer recall intervals [19,20]. In the present study, regular dental attendance could not predict caries experience measured as deft/ DEFT.…”

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Dental Attendance and Caries Experience among Children of Newcomers

“…This finding supports other studies that predict decisions to utilize dental care [9,10]. This highlights the importance of oral health education and promotion programs targeting both attitude and PBC toward dental attendance [19]. Interestingly, the subjective norm construct did not predict intention.…”

“…Although a routine biannual dental visit is the most recommended practice, this practice has been challenged because of the lack of evidence [4]. Multiple Cochrane reviews concluded that there is the lack of evidence to support or refute the benefits of dental check-ups every 6 months or to demonstrate any harmful effects of longer recall intervals [19,20]. In the present study, regular dental attendance could not predict caries experience measured as deft/ DEFT.…”

Oral health indices predict individualised recall interval

“…Consistent with previous studies of IRI, it has been recommended to use risk-based management in interval decisions (Fontana & Zero, 2006;Tonetti et al, 2015). However, there is not yet strong evidence for the recommendation (Beirne et al, 2007;Riley et al, 2013). The recall interval can also be based on the classification of patients into low, moderate and high risk groups (Beirne et al, 2007).…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [11-13,17,19,20,24-26,34,35,38,42,43]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [34] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [38].…”

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Dental Attendance and Caries Experience among Children of Newcomers

“…This finding supports other studies that predict decisions to utilize dental care [9,10]. This highlights the importance of oral health education and promotion programs targeting both attitude and PBC toward dental attendance [19]. Interestingly, the subjective norm construct did not predict intention.…”

“…Although a routine biannual dental visit is the most recommended practice, this practice has been challenged because of the lack of evidence [4]. Multiple Cochrane reviews concluded that there is the lack of evidence to support or refute the benefits of dental check-ups every 6 months or to demonstrate any harmful effects of longer recall intervals [19,20]. In the present study, regular dental attendance could not predict caries experience measured as deft/ DEFT.…”

Oral health indices predict individualised recall interval

“…Consistent with previous studies of IRI, it has been recommended to use risk-based management in interval decisions (Fontana & Zero, 2006;Tonetti et al, 2015). However, there is not yet strong evidence for the recommendation (Beirne et al, 2007;Riley et al, 2013). The recall interval can also be based on the classification of patients into low, moderate and high risk groups (Beirne et al, 2007).…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [11-13,17,19,20,24-26,34,35,38,42,43]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [34] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [38].…”

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Dental Attendance and Caries Experience among Children of Newcomers

“…This finding supports other studies that predict decisions to utilize dental care [9,10]. This highlights the importance of oral health education and promotion programs targeting both attitude and PBC toward dental attendance [19]. Interestingly, the subjective norm construct did not predict intention.…”

“…Although a routine biannual dental visit is the most recommended practice, this practice has been challenged because of the lack of evidence [4]. Multiple Cochrane reviews concluded that there is the lack of evidence to support or refute the benefits of dental check-ups every 6 months or to demonstrate any harmful effects of longer recall intervals [19,20]. In the present study, regular dental attendance could not predict caries experience measured as deft/ DEFT.…”

Oral health indices predict individualised recall interval

“…Consistent with previous studies of IRI, it has been recommended to use risk-based management in interval decisions (Fontana & Zero, 2006;Tonetti et al, 2015). However, there is not yet strong evidence for the recommendation (Beirne et al, 2007;Riley et al, 2013). The recall interval can also be based on the classification of patients into low, moderate and high risk groups (Beirne et al, 2007).…”

Methodological quality and implications for practice of systematic Cochrane reviews in pediatric oral health: a critical assessment

“…In all reviews, the reporting of 8 of the 11 items was adequate (Figure 1). The weakest area was failure to report the likelihood of publication bias, in 14 reviews (38%), which did not assess publication bias [11-13,17,19,20,24-26,34,35,38,42,43]. One review did not use “grey” literature as an inclusion criterion [34] and in another, the methods used to combine the findings of studies were inappropriate [38].…”