A. Forgie

Bio: A. Forgie is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Recall. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 96 citations.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Abstract: BACKGROUND The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate for almost 3 decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, 6-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries. OBJECTIVES To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example 6 months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish. To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 9th April 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design- random allocation of participants; participants - all children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care settings, irrespective of their level of risk for oral disease; interventions -recall intervals for the following different types of dental check-ups: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus scale and polish plus preventive advice; e) no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic); f) clinician risk-based recall intervals; outcomes - clinical status outcomes for dental caries (including, but not limited to, mean dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS scores, caries increment, filled teeth (including replacement restorations), early carious lesions arrested or reversed); periodontal disease (including, but not limited to, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, periodontitis, change in probing depth, attachment level); oral mucosa (presence or absence of mucosal lesions, potentially malignant lesions, cancerous lesions, size and stage of cancerous lesions at diagnosis). In addition the following outcomes were considered where reported: patient-centred outcomes, economic cost outcomes, other outcomes such as improvements in oral health knowledge and attitudes, harms, changes in dietary habits and any other oral health-related behavioural change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two authors. Authors were contacted, where deemed necessary and where possible, for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of the included trial was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS Only one study (with 188 participants) was included in this review and was assessed as having a high risk of bias. This study provided limited data for dental caries outcomes (dmfs/DMFS increment) and economic cost outcomes (reported time taken to provide examinations and treatment). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS 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.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate in recent decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, six-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example six months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish.To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 27 September 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 September 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. We did not apply any restrictions regarding language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria of the review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for clarification or further information where necessary and feasible. If we had found more than one study with similar comparisons reporting the same outcomes, we would have combined the studies in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model if there were at least four studies, or a fixed-effect model if there were less than four studies. We expressed the estimate of effect as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We would have used risk ratios with 95% CI for any dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study that analysed 185 participants. The study compared the effects of a clinical examination every 12 months with a clinical examination every 24 months on the outcomes of caries (decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs/DMFS) increment) and economic cost outcomes (total time used per person). As the study was at high risk of bias, had a small sample size and only included low-risk participants, we rated the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes as very low.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the mean difference (MD) in dmfs increment was -0.90 (95% CI -1.96 to 0.16) in favour of 12-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD in DMFS increment was -0.86 (95% CI -1.75 to 0.03) also in favour of 12-month recall. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better caries outcomes.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the MD in time used by each participant was 10 minutes (95% CI -6.7 to 26.7) in favour of 24-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD was 23.7 minutes (95% CI 4.12 to 43.28) also in favour of 24-month recall. This single study at high risk of bias represents insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better time/cost outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low quality body of evidence from one RCT which is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is no evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at six-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.

Patient Stratification for Preventive Care in Dentistry

Abstract: Prevention reduces tooth loss, but little evidence supports biannual preventive care for all adults. We used risk-based approaches to test tooth loss association with 1 vs. 2 annual preventive visits in high-risk (HiR) and low-risk (LoR) patients. Insurance claims for 16 years for 5,117 adults were evaluated retrospectively for tooth extraction events. Patients were classified as HiR for progressive periodontitis if they had ≥ 1 of the risk factors (RFs) smoking, diabetes, interleukin-1 genotype; or as LoR if no RFs. LoR event rates were 13.8% and 16.4% for 2 or 1 annual preventive visits (absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; 95%CI, 0.5% to 5.8%; p = .092). HiR event rates were 16.9% and 22.1% for 2 and 1 preventive visits (absolute risk reduction, 5.2%; 95%CI, 1.8% to 8.4%; p = .002). Increasing RFs increased events (p .41), but multiple RFs increased costs vs. no (p < .001) or 1 RF (p = .001). For LoR ...

A study of the fate of the buccal wall of extraction sockets of teeth with prominent roots

Abstract: an evidence base to inform everyday practice, how remuneration systems may affect treatment modalities, and how the oral health assessment on determining recall intervals and clinical care pathways affect quality of life. It was heartening to see that, although they came from a variety of backgrounds and from groups which can be said to have potentially conflicting interests, those involved in the Faculty’s Delphi study reached a consensus view on research priorities in primary dental care relatively easily. In doing so, they reflected the consensus reached during the recent Delphi study on general (medical) practice management.13 As clinicians formed the largest interest group within the Delphi ‘consortium’, it was perhaps unsurprising that the first four priority areas that were identified came from the ‘clinical’ group of topics. However, they are all also of considerable importance to patients and those who commission the provision of oral healthcare. It was perhaps also unsurprising that the highest priority topic from the ‘patient’ group of topics was ‘evaluation of methods to improve access to NHS services and their cost-effectiveness’. The timing of the Delphi study was of importance. With the changes to the delivery of NHS pr imary dental care set out in Options for Change22 and the planned introduction of the new dentists’ contract it was felt by the participants that prospective research would be required to assess their impact on patient care. This approach supported a view held by many who believe that new arrangements for the delivery of healthcare, including the use of guidelines, should be vigorously tested before their adoption.23 It has also been suggested that the impact of any changes should be researched before their implementation in practice,24 something the present Government has singularly failed to do. Recently, the former Chief Dental Officer provided funds to help establish an Oral Health Research Unit at the University of Manchester. As previously highlighted, there is a need to engage all those with an interest when setting pr iorities for research. In the case of pr imary dental care, these include patients, practitioners and the commissioners of care. This point will be of great importance to the future success of the Unit and indeed to research initiatives developed by the Faculty and all other bodies.

Mechanical and chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and caries: a systematic review

Abstract: Aim To report the evidence on the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and caries. Material and Methods A protocol was designed to identify randomized (RCTs) and controlled (CCTs) clinical trials, cohort studies and prospective case series (PCS), with at least 6 months of follow-up, reporting on plaque, gingivitis and caries. Relevant information was extracted from full papers, including quality and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. Results After the screening of 1,373 titles, 15 RCTs, 10 CCTs and 2 PCS were included. Low to moderate evidence support that combined professional and self-performed mechanical plaque control significantly reduces standardized plaque index [n = 4; weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.294; 95% CI (0.445; 2.144); p = 0.003] and gingivitis scores [n = 4; WMD = 1.728; 95% CI (0.631; 2.825); p = 0.002]. The addition of fluoride to mechanical plaque control is relevant for caries management [n = 5; WMD = 1.159; 95% CI (0.145; 2.172); p = 0.025] while chlorhexidine rinses are relevant for gingivitis. Conclusion Mechanical plaque control procedures are effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis. The addition of fluoride to mechanical plaque control is significant for caries management. Chlorhexidine rinse has a positive effect on gingivitis and inconclusive role in caries.