No abstract

Objective: To systematically assess the diagnostic value of host-derived salivary biomarkers based on their reported sensitivity and specificity in relation to clinical parameters of periodontal disease diagnosis in adults. Materials and Methods: Comprehensive search of PubMed, Nature, Cochrane and OVID (Embase, MEDLINE [R] and PsycINFO) was conducted up to 1 August 2018, using key terms relevant to the research questions and Cochrane methodology, supplemented by a grey literature search. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of all included studies. Results: Seven studies were included in the review. Macrophage inflammatory protein-1αlpha (MIP-1α), interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) were identified as diagnostically acceptable biomarkers for periodontal disease. Overall, the combination of IL-6 and MMP-8 showed best diagnostic performance. Also, a combination of the four key biomarkers (IL-1β, IL-6, MMP-8 and MIP-1α) showed promising results for distinction between gingivitis and periodontitis, as well as for periodontitis compared with gingival health. Results are interpreted with caution due to limitations in the number of studies included and their quality.

Introduction: Against the COVID-19 pandemic backdrop and potential disease transmission risk by dental procedures that can generate aerosol and droplets. Objectives: This review aimed to identify which clinical dental procedures do generate droplets and aerosols with subsequent contamination, and for these, characterise their pattern, spread and settle. Materials and Method: Six databases were searched and citation chasing undertaken (to 11/08/20). Screening stages were undertaken in duplicate, independently, by two researchers. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Results: Eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and covered: Ultrasonic scaling (USS, n=44), high speed air-rotor (HSAR, n=31); oral surgery (n=11), slow-speed handpiece (n=4); air-water (triple) syringe (n=4), air-polishing (n=4), prophylaxis (n=2) and hand-scaling (n=2). Although no studies investigated respiratory viruses, those on bacteria, blood splatter and aerosol showed activities using powered devices produced the greatest contamination. Contamination was found for all activities, and at the furthest points studied. The operator torso operator arm, and patient body were especially affected. Heterogeneity precluded significant inter-study comparisons but intra-study comparisons allowed construction of a proposed hierarchy of procedure contamination risk: higher risk (USS, HSAR, air-water syringe [air only or air/water together], air polishing, extractions using motorised hand-pieces); moderate (slow-speed handpieces, prophylaxis with pumice, extractions) and lower (air-water syringe [water only] and hand scaling. Conclusion: Significant gaps in the evidence, low sensitivity of measures and variable quality limit firm conclusions around contamination for different procedures. However, a hierarchy of contamination from procedures can be proposed for challenge/verification by future research which should consider standardised methodologies to facilitate research synthesis. Clinical significance (49 words): This manuscript addresses uncertainty around aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in dentistry. Findings indicate a continuum of procedure-related aerosol generation rather than the current binary AGP or non-AGP perspective. This informs discussion around AGPs and direct future research to help support knowledge and decision making around COVID-19 and dental procedures.

Aim To review evidence on oral health practices, beliefs/views and experiences of community-dwelling older adults living with dementia, including their carers. Materials and methods A search of key terms across six databases including Pubmed, Web of Science and OVID (Embase, MEDLINE [R] and PsycINFO) and Google Scholar was conducted, supplemented by reference screening. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 was used to assess the methodological quality. Results Eighteen studies reported across 19 papers were included in the review. Papers largely focused on normative needs (n = 13), whilst also reporting oral health-related experiences (n = 2), practices (n = 7), and beliefs/views (n = 9), of community dwellers with dementia. Generally, people living with dementia presented with poor oral and dental health, the exception being one study where dental care was integrated with memory clinic services. Maintenance of oral health focused only on toothbrushing. Overall, people living with dementia have reduced capacity for self-performed oral hygiene and high reliance on caregivers. There was a paucity of evidence on their perceptions of oral health and quality of life, the findings of which were equivocal, with weak evidence suggesting possible difficulty in identifying and communicating their needs. Experiences of accessing dental care, when explored, appear to be system dependent. Conclusion There was limited research evidence on oral health-related practices, beliefs/views and experiences of people with dementia. Recommendations for future research are presented.

Background: There has been much research relating to stressors in the dental environment and concerns over dentists’ health and wellbeing. The determinants of dentists’ health and wellbeing within the UK include macro-factors, such as healthcare systems and regulation; meso-factors, such as job specification and workplace characteristics; and micro-factors, such as personal aspects, professional career level, and personal and professional relationships. Given the challenges in dentistry, research is needed to investigate the key determinants relating to the health and wellbeing of clinical dental care professionals (DCPs) nationally. Aim: To review the literature on the key determinants of health and wellbeing among dental hygienists, dental therapists, clinical dental technicians, and orthodontic therapists in the UK. Materials and methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases. The records were screened by title, abstract and full text based on the study inclusion criteria. Extraction of data and a qualitative synthesis of the included studies was performed. A mixed methods appraisal tool was used to quality assess for risk of bias. Results: Twelve studies were included in this review, eleven of which were medium to high quality (5*, 4*) and one low quality (2*). Ten studies focused on dental therapists, and/or hygienists, with only one each on orthodontic therapists and clinical dental technicians. Job satisfaction and professional careers were the primary factors explored in the included studies and clearly identified as determinants of health and wellbeing. However, there was evidence of these being associated and linked with a range of determinants at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels, with a general lack of evidence on the overall health and wellbeing. Conclusion: There is currently very limited evidence on the key determinants of health and wellbeing of clinical DCPs within the UK, but the available evidence maps to the same domains as dentists. Further well conducted research examining the overall health and wellbeing is required, with consideration of the full matrix of possible factors.