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?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Article
- Bayesian Nonparametric Policy Search with Application to Periodontal Recall Intervals.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2020Article
- Health literacy, acculturation, and the use of preventive oral health care by Somali refugees living in massachusetts.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2014Article
- 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 · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.