Background Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. Methods/Design This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0–3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI. Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. Discussion IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. Trial registration Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715

Background: Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.Methods: A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.Results: 369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3% (6-month group), 47.0% (12-month group) and 30.0% (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be "every 6 months" or more frequently: 77.9% (6-month group), 64.6% (12-month group), 71.7% (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of "once a year" or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.36, 6.13).Conclusions: The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.

Background: Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. (Continued on next page) * Correspondence: t.lamont@dundee.ac.uk Dental Health Services Research Unit, Dundee Dental School, The University of Dundee, 9th Floor, Park Place, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2013 Clarkson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Clarkson et al. BMC Oral Health 2013, 13:58 Page 2 of 12 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/13/58 (Continued from previous page) Methods/Design: This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0–3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI. Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. Discussion: IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. Trial registration: Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715

BACKGROUND:Practice-based general dental practitioners routinely provide "scale and polish" or "oral prophylaxis" to patients attending their practices. Despite its routine provision, there is no evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, nor the frequency at which it should be provided. A recent systematic review recommended that future trials investigating scale and polish should involve dental practice patients.METHODS:A practice-based parallel randomised controlled trial with 24-month follow-up was conducted. Healthy adults (Basic Periodontal Examination [BPE] codes <3) were randomly assigned to 3 groups (6-month, 12-month, or 24-month interval between scale and polish). The primary outcome was gingival bleeding with the hypothesis that 6-monthly scale and polish would result in lower prevalence than 12-month or 24-month frequency. Follow-up measurements were recorded by examiners blinded to the allocation. 125, 122 and 122 participants were randomised to the 6-month, 12-month and 24-month groups respectively. Complete data set analyses were conducted for 307 participants: 107, 100, and 100 in the 6-month, 12-month and 24-month groups respectively. Chi-square test and ANOVA were used to compare treatment groups at follow-up. Logistic regression and ANCOVA were used to estimate the relationship between outcome and treatment group, adjusted for baseline values. Multiple imputation analyses were also carried out for participants with incomplete data sets.RESULTS:Prevalence of gingival bleeding at follow-up was 78.5% (6-month), 78% (12-month) and 82% (24-month) (p = 0.746). There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to follow-up prevalence of plaque and calculus. Statistically significant differences detected in the amount (millimetres) of calculus were too small to be clinically significant. Seventeen (4.6%) participants were withdrawn from the trial to receive additional treatment.CONCLUSIONS:This trial could not identify any differences in outcomes for single-visit scale and polish provided at 6, 12 and 24 month frequencies for healthy patients (with no significant periodontal disease). However, this is the first trial of scale and polish which has been conducted in a general practice setting and the results are not conclusive. Larger trials with more comprehensive measurement and long-term follow up need to be undertaken to provide a firm evidence base for this intervention. This trial informs the design of future practice-based trials on this subject.

This paper gives an overview of the strategic background for procurement of NHS primary care dental services and an outline of the processes involved in procurement. The main aim is to bring procurement to the attention of a wider audience of dental practitioners and provide advice for potential primary care dental service providers. The move towards local procurement of healthcare services, including primary care dental services, has been shaped by a number of strategic Government publications and is supported by law. In line with other public bodies, the NHS is subject to the European Union and international rules regarding procurement and awarding contracts. Primary Care Trust (PCT) Dental Service Commissioners have to ensure that their procurement strategy is transparent and non-discriminatory so that all providers have an equal opportunity to compete for contracts. In order to successfully tender for future service provision contracts, dental practitioners not only need to be aware of the process of procurement and its associated legal requirements. It is also important that they have a grasp of the expectations of PCTs. Commissioning services via procurement is set to become more commonplace and it is likely, in time, that competition for some contracts will increase in intensity. The importance of researching proposals thoroughly and adopting a professional, businesslike approach to tendering cannot be understated as this maximises chance of success in the new commissioning environment.

UNLABELLED:This article aims to give dental practitioners the background to the new NHS quality agenda. The clinical context of Lord Darzi's NHS review is examined alongside other policy documentation and Professor Jimmy Steele's independent review of NHS dental services. The potential impact of the new quality requirements on general dental practitioners is considered. Finally, opportunities for development are suggested so that practitioners can engage with the quality agenda and can demonstrate quality measures and improvements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:All general dental practitioners in both the NHS and private sectors have an obligation to continue to deliver high quality dental services. Dentists practising in England will need to ensure that they comply with new quality requirements by 2011.

Background. The development of dental anxiety in children is poorly understood. Aims. The aims of this study were to measure changes in dental anxiety over time and to examine the relationship between anxiety, dental care, and other factors.Design. A prospective cohort study of children in the north-west of England followed from 5 to 9 years of age. The participants were clinically examined and their parents completed the same questionnaire at 5 and 9 years.Results. The majority (54.3% N = 38) of participants who were anxious at 5 years were no longer anxious at 9 years, but a large proportion of children who were anxious at 5 remained anxious at 9 years of age (45.7% N = 32). During the follow-up period, a larger proportion of children developed anxiety (11.7% N = 85) than the proportion of children who were reported as being anxious at baseline (8.8% N = 70). At 9 years of age, dental anxiety was significantly associated with girls; parental anxiety; a history of extraction; and irregular, asymptomatic dental visiting. These factors were also significantly associated with dental anxiety at 5 years old.Conclusions. Dental anxiety was cumulative in the study population over time, and its development influenced by multiple variables. Results suggest that adverse conditioning and vicarious learning are both important in the development of this condition.