• Provides an overview of the oral health of inmates, based on epidemiological research undertaken in this area.• Details why such research is necessary, the problems involved in conducting such research, and informs on methods of good practice.• Highlights the lack of available information on service delivery and organisation in prison institutions. I N B R I E F RESEARCHObjectives To establish the nature of research into dental health undertaken in prisons. Data sources Databases were searched electronically. This process was supplemented by hand searching of references. Data selection Two independent reviewers made initial selections and subsequently carried out full text screening. Discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data extraction Fifty potentially relevant studies were identifi ed and further screened for inclusion. Of this number, 29 studies were excluded; the remaining 21 were deemed appropri ate to include in the review. The primary focus of the papers identified was the oral health status of inmates, assessed by clinical examinations of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and periodontal status, and self-report measures of oral health behaviours and service utilisation. Attempts were made to reduce sources of bias by selecting random samples of inmates and standardising measurement techniques, and addressing potential confounding effects. Few studies considered the potential impact of socio-economic status on disease levels. In some studies the oral health of inmate populations was compared to that of non-institutionalised individuals. Studies report high prevalence of oral disease, though precise levels differ according to the composition of the samples. Conclusions The heterogeneity of populations studied and methods of assessment precludes simple generalisation, but the consistent trend appears to be that the oral health status of inmates is poor and also poor in comparison with non-institutionalised individuals where appropriate comparisons have been made.

Reflex responses to mechanical stimulation of muscle (brief imposed movement) were investigated. Reflexes were elicited in the forefinger, recording from the first dorsal interosseous (FDI), and in the foot, recording from soleus. These responses typically consisted of a short-latency component (M1) and a long-latency component (M2) at 33 ms and 53 ms, respectively, after the stimulus in the case of FDI, and 37 ms and 68 ms, respectively, in soleus upon stimulation of the sole of the foot. Normally, when a muscle is stretched by a mechanical stimulus (either naturally or by an experimentally imposed movement), both skin receptors and muscle stretch receptors are activated. It is possible, however, to devise stimulation parameters where this is not the case. Fixating the finger with plasticine enables the effects of skin stimulation to be studied without stretching the FDI muscle. On the other hand, tapping a long tendon allows muscle stretch receptors to be activated without involving skin or subcutaneous structures. Component M1 was always abolished by finger fixation in 40 trials on 10 subjects, with M2 being essentially unchanged in latency, duration, or amplitude. Reflex responses were obtained in soleus muscle in nine experiments by prodding the sole of the foot (thereby stimulating both skin and muscle stretch receptors). Alternatively, the tendo achilles was prodded (which solely activates stretch receptors in the muscle). In the former, M1 and M2 were generated. In the latter, only M1 was produced. It is concluded that the long-latency component of the stretch reflex, M2, originates in skin and/or subcutaneous nerve terminals and that no part of M2 originates in muscle stretch receptors.