Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16184154›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2005

Insufficient evidence to support or refute the need for 6-monthly dental check-ups. What is the optimal recall frequency between dental checks?

Dirk Mettes

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluating a community-based dental registration program for preschool children living in areas of high social deprivation.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dirk MettesCollege of Oral Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen (formerly University of Nijmegen) Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

data sourcesTrials were sourced using the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, 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. STUDY SELECTION: 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 either clinical examination only, clinical examination plus scale and polish, clinical examination plus preventive advice, clinical examination plus scale and polish plus preventive advice, no recall interval/patient-driven attendance (which may be symptomatic), or 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, and attachment level); oral mucosa (presence or absence of mucosal lesions, potentially malignant lesions, cancerous lesions, and 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 EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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.

resultsOnly 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).

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) 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 RCT are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address its objectives.

Identifiers

PMID16184154
OpenAlexW2098537617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.