Objective This scoping review aims to identify complex health interventions (CHI’s) to prevent early childhood caries (ECC), explore the level of complexity of the identified CHI’s, and explore the details of their development, evaluation, and implementation. Introduction Many interventions to prevent ECC have multiple interacting components and can be seen as CHI’s. Recent reviews on these interventions have found inconclusive effects, which may be due to differences in the development, evaluation, and implementation of CHI’s. Inclusion criteria This scoping review will consider clinical trials reporting CHI’s to prevent ECC that starts during pregnancy or in the first year of life. Studies in the English language will be included regardless of the country of origin, sociocultural setting, or context. Methods This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. An initial search of PubMed identified keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms. A second search of PubMed, Embase, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Wiley/Cochrane Library will follow. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, retrieve and review full-text studies, and extract data. The reference lists of all included sources will be screened for additional CHI’s or relevant publications about a specific CHI. Data charting will be utilised based on study characteristics and intervention complexity. A 39-item instrument will be used to explore the details in the description of the CHI’s development, evaluation, and implementation. The results will be presented in tables, visual outputs, and a narrative summary in response to the review questions. Discussion The proposed review will generate evidence which may provide a direction for the future design of studies on CHI’s to prevent ECC and more complete information for those who want to adopt successful interventions to prevent ECC.
LINK
This prospective randomized clinical trial evaluated tooth sensitivity and patient satisfaction after the provision of partial ceramic restorations bonded using immediate (IDS) or delayed dentin sealing (DDS) on vital molar teeth through a within-subject comparison study. Between December 2013 and May 2016, a total of 30 patients (13 women, 17 men; mean age, 54 years old) received two lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS-e.max press, Ivoclar Vivadent) partial restorations on vital first or second molar teeth (N=60). The two teeth randomly received either IDS (test group, n=30) or DDS (control group, n=30). Partial preparations were performed on all teeth and directly after tooth preparation. IDS was achieved using self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Primer and Adhesive, Kuraray) followed by the application of flowable resin (Clearfil Majesty Flow, Kuraray). Partial ceramic restorations were bonded (Variolink Ultra, Ivoclar Vivadent) two weeks after preparation. The teeth were evaluated preoperatively and at one week, three months, and 12 months postoperatively using a cold test and a questionnaire for perceived tooth sensitivity. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). Data were analyzed using McNemar, chi-squared, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α=0.01). There was no significant difference in patient-reported tooth sensitivity between the preoperative phase and all other time points (p>0.01). There was also no significant difference between IDS and DDS (p>0.01) for all items on the questionnaire. VAS scores did not differ significantly between the IDS and DDS groups for all items in the questionnaire at all time points (p>0.01). No tooth sensitivity change was noticed with the application of partial ceramic indirect restorations. This clinical study could not confirm that IDS is more advantageous than DDS in terms of tooth sensitivity and patient satisfaction at 1 year of clinical service of partial ceramic restorations.
An extended professional identity theory is proposed to enhance interprofessional collaboration. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction can decrease the degree of profession-based dominance and general dominance in mixed profession groups. This observational study comprised a randomized double-blind pretest-posttest control group design with 19 mixed profession groups (10 intervention and nine control groups, each with three dental and three dental hygiene students). All groups received reflective feedback during two consecutive two hour team development meetings. Intervention groups also received comparative feedback. Profession-based dominance concerned the sum of three observation items (conversational turntaking, dominance and contributing ideas) with a three-point scale: −1 = dental dominance, 0 = no dominance, +1 = dental hygiene dominance. Polychoric correlations confirmed positive associations with the latent trait and an unidimensional underlying structure. Observation items were internally consistent (α > .70). General dominance concerned the sum of absolute values of observation items with a minimum value of zero (no dominance) and the maximum value of three (strong dominance). A two-way factorial ANOVA was performed. The results revealed a significant interaction effect with regard to general dominance, F(1,17) = 6.630, p = 0.020 and large effect size (partial eta squared = 0.28). Comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction decreases general dominance in mixed profession groups.
