Background: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012 data indicated that, in the United States, nearly one-fourth of children and over one-half of adolescents experienced dental caries in their permanent teeth. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available clinical evidence regarding the effect of dental sealants for the prevention and management of pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions in primary and permanent molars, compared with a control without sealants, with fluoride varnishes, or with other head-to head comparisons. Type of Studies Reviewed: The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials that included at least 2 years of follow-up, which they identified using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and registers of ongoing trials. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and quality of the evidence assessments by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Of 2,869 records screened, the authors determined that 24 articles (representing 23 studies) proved eligible. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that participants who received sealants had a reduced risk of developing carious lesions in occlusal surfaces of permanent molars compared with those who did not receive sealants (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.08-027) after 7 or more years of follow-up. When the authors compared studies whose investigators had compared sealants with fluoride varnishes, they found that sealants reduced the incidence of carious lesions after 7 or more years of follow-up (OR, 0.19; 95% Cl, 0.07-0.51); however, this finding was supported by low-quality evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the authors could not provide a hierarchy of effectiveness among the studies whose investigators had conducted head-to-head comparisons. The investigators of 2 trials provided information about adverse events, but they did not report any adverse events. Conclusions and Practical Implications: Available evidence suggests that sealants are effective and safe to prevent or arrest the progression of noncavitated carious lesions compared with a control without sealants or fluoride varnishes. Further research is needed to provide information about the relative merits of the different types of sealant materials.

BACKGROUND:This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents. A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated recommendations to address clinical questions in relation to the efficacy, retention, and potential side effects of sealants to prevent dental caries; their efficacy compared with fluoride varnishes; and a head-to-head comparison of the different types of sealant material used to prevent caries on pits and fissures of occlusal surfaces. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED:This is an update of the ADA 2008 recommendations on the use of pit-and-fissure sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials reporting on the effect of sealants (available on the US market) when applied to the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the quality of the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS:The guideline panel formulated 3 main recommendations. They concluded that sealants are effective in preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents compared with the nonuse of sealants or use of fluoride varnishes. They also concluded that sealants could minimize the progression of noncavitated occlusal carious lesions (also referred to as initial lesions) that receive a sealant. Finally, based on the available limited evidence, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations on the relative merits of 1 type of sealant material over the others. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:These recommendations are designed to inform practitioners during the clinical decision-making process in relation to the prevention of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents. Clinicians are encouraged to discuss the information in this guideline with patients or the parents of patients. The authors recommend that clinicians reorient their efforts toward increasing the use of sealants on the occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent molars in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012 data indicated that, in the United States, nearly one-fourth of children and over one-half of adolescents experienced dental caries in their permanent teeth. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available clinical evidence regarding the effect of dental sealants for the prevention and management of pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions in primary and permanent molars, compared with a control without sealants, with fluoride varnishes, or with other head-to head comparisons.TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED:The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials that included at least 2 years of follow-up, which they identified using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and registers of ongoing trials. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and quality of the evidence assessments by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.RESULTS:Of 2,869 records screened, the authors determined that 24 articles (representing 23 studies) proved eligible. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that participants who received sealants had a reduced risk of developing carious lesions in occlusal surfaces of permanent molars compared with those who did not receive sealants (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.27) after 7 or more years of follow-up. When the authors compared studies whose investigators had compared sealants with fluoride varnishes, they found that sealants reduced the incidence of carious lesions after 7 or more years of follow-up (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.51); however, this finding was supported by low-quality evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the authors could not provide a hierarchy of effectiveness among the studies whose investigators had conducted head-to-head comparisons. The investigators of 2 trials provided information about adverse events, but they did not report any adverse events.CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS:Available evidence suggests that sealants are effective and safe to prevent or arrest the progression of noncavitated carious lesions compared with a control without sealants or fluoride varnishes. Further research is needed to provide information about the relative merits of the different types of sealant materials.

BACKGROUND:The authors measured the awareness of the dental home concept among pediatric dentists (PDs) and general practice dentists (GPs) in Ohio and determined whether they included dental home characteristics for children 5 years and younger into their practices.METHODS:The authors sent a pretested 20-question survey to all Ohio PDs and to a random sample of approximately 20 percent of GPs in Ohio. The authors designed the survey to elicit information about dental home awareness and the extent to which dental home characteristics were incorporated into dental practices.RESULTS:More than 90 percent of both GPs and PDs incorporated or intended to incorporate into their dental practices the specific dental home characteristics mentioned in 20 of 41 items related to dental home characteristics. Of the respondents who did not already incorporate dental home characteristics into their practices, however, most did not intend to do so. Less than 50 percent of respondents in both groups responded positively to some items in the culturally effective group, and GPs were less likely than were PDs to provide a range of behavior management services and to provide treatment for patients with complex medical and dental treatment needs. PDs were more likely than were GPs to accept Ohio Medicaid (64 versus 33 percent). PDs were more likely than were GPs (78 versus 18 percent) to be familiar with the term "dental home." More recent dental school graduates were more familiar with the term.CONCLUSIONS:Most Ohio PDs' and GPs' practices included characteristics found in the definition of dental home, despite a general lack of concept awareness on the part of GPs. Research is needed to provide an evidence base for the dental home. Practical Implications. Once an evidence base is developed for the important aspects of the dental home and the definition is revised, efforts should be made to incorporate these aspects more broadly into dental practice.

In the corporate world, one climbs the ladder of success. Public health, however, operates on a smaller stage. So, a state dental program must first walk up three or four steps onto the stage upon which sits the “three-legged stool of success.” The Isman et al. article featured Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors resources that provide a great set of floor lights to guide state dental programs to the steps in an otherwise dark auditorium called “the real world, early in the 21st century.” Others have called for different approaches to support state dental programs, such as through infrastructure efforts. In this metaphor, this collectively represents a handrail to help states up those few steps to the stage and the stool. Although they are good processes, neither the lights nor the handrail guarantee ascension because it is no easy task for a state dental program to sit squarely on the three-legged stool of success, and even more difficult to do so for very long – but states can increase their odds. The three legs of the stool all start with the letter “C”– chutzpah, connections, and celestial alignment. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Yiddish word chutzpah originated in the late 19th century and means “supreme self-confidence” (synonyms include nerve and gall). Connections, in terms of the stool, refer to what the dictionary calls “an acquaintance who has influence, especially in the business or political world.” For me, celestial alignment means that the right climate for action exists – even if it is for the wrong reason (e.g., the death of Deamonte Driver). Therefore, to successfully create and sustain a system of private and public services and programs that will improve the oral health of the people of Maryland or any other state, someone has to have the nerve to speak up to people who have the power to take action when the time is right. Very few people can control the rightness of the time for action, so it is important for state dental programs to maintain a state of readiness by doing the work to provide data that will help support the need for action. They must take whatever role is necessary to assure that they have plans that will provide a roadmap for the types of action that make sense because they are based in scientific evidence and are most likely to make a real difference. Therefore, the academic and research communities should provide that scientific base and participate in state oral health coalitions. State dental programs must have in place the relationships, both internal to their organizations and external to their broad array of partners, which are needed to accomplish substantial and lasting change. The Maryland Summit was designed to learn from others. But the truth is that there is much that other states can learn from Maryland. Given Maryland's track record, I do not believe that the public oral health community in this state lacks chutzpah nor do I suspect that this community does not appreciate the value of connections and continually seeking to nurture current ones and cultivate new ones. Isman et al. have given good practical advice for continuing to do the hard work that is only periodically rewarded. I encourage Maryland and other states to use that advice; increase the odds of success for when the time, once again, is right; and be persistent. The author has declared to conflict of interest relevant to the submitted work.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this review was to examine methodological similarities and differences in states that have implemented joint school-based oral health/body mass index (BMI) surveillance.METHODS:Individuals in states with joint oral health/BMI surveillance were interviewed by e-mail and phone on the following: how the collaboration came about, survey methodology, rewards for participation, BMI data collection methods, data forms, BMI results, how BMI data were utilized, lessons learned, and challenges.RESULTS:Nine states were represented in this review (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). All states collected surveillance data among third-grade children through selecting a random, stratified sample of elementary schools. These states also used state-specific BMI protocols, including use of standardized, calibrated equipment to measure height/weight. Many states also used local support to implement the surveillance program and used external sources for statistical support. Differences among these states included types of rewards used, mode of consent, and parties involved in the collaboration. The most common uses of the BMI data include: assessing the magnitude of the problem, informing programs, allocation of resources, identification of priority areas for prevention research, support for grant applications, and program evaluation.CONCLUSIONS:Although there are some minor differences among states that have implemented joint school-based oral health/BMI surveillance, there are overarching similarities such as survey design and standardization of BMI measures. States considering implementing BMI surveillance efforts can use this review as a starting point to consider attributes such as program effectiveness and methods to improve or enhance surveillance systems already in place.

OBJECTIVES:To assess the effect of various school-level Free and Reduced Price Meal Program (FRPMP) enrollment-based risk thresholds on the ability of school-based sealant programs (S-BSPs) to reach higher risk children.METHODS:We used data from a statewide third grade oral health survey to compare: a) prevalence of dental caries for higher-risk children, using three different sets of child risk criteria based on social determinants; and b) dental caries and other access-related indicators for children at higher-risk schools based on four FRPMP-based thresholds (> or = 60 percent of children FRPMP-enrolled, > or = 50 percent, > or = 40 percent, > or = 30 percent). In addition, we used school enrollment and FRPMP enrollment data to compare the percentages of eligible schools and of higher-risk children resulting from the various thresholds.RESULTS:The prevalence of caries experiences and untreated caries were not significantly different for higher risk children categorized by the respective child caries risk criteria. Regardless of school-level risk threshold, children at higher risk schools were more likely to have caries experience, untreated caries, and no recent dental visit and less likely to have private dental insurance than children at lower risk schools. For these measures, children at higher risk schools were similar to each other regardless of risk threshold and were similar to higher risk children at all schools. The number of additional higher risk children per additional higher risk school showed a large decline between the 40-49 percent and 30-39 percent FRPMP enrollment tiers.CONCLUSIONS:Targeting higher risk schools to reach higher risk children is a practical and effective approach for increasing sealant prevalence through S-BSPs.

OBJECTIVES This report compares sealant prevalence by caries risk status among third graders at Ohio schools with and without school-based dental sealant programs (S-BSPs), and estimates the percent of children receiving sealants in S-BSPs who are higher risk for dental caries. METHODS We analyzed data from a statewide open-mouth oral health survey of Ohio third grade schoolchildren for sealant prevalence by S-BSP availability and caries risk classification. Children were classified as higher or lower risk for dental caries based on school lunch program enrollment and other non-clinical access-related indicators. Differences between groups were evaluated by the chi-square test (P < 0.05). RESULTS At schools with no S-BSPs, higher risk children were less likely to have dental sealants than lower risk children (28.7 percent versus 42.7 percent, P < 0.001). At schools with S-BSPs, sealant prevalence for both risk categories was equivalent for higher and lower risk children (59.4 percent, 63.4 percent, P = 0.428). Higher risk children at schools with S-BSPs were more than twice as likely to have a sealant as higher risk children at non-S-BSP schools (59.4 percent versus 28.7 percent, P < 0.001). Of higher risk children with at least one sealant, 61 percent attended a school with an S-BSP compared with 12.3 percent of lower risk children with at least one sealant. Higher risk children accounted for at least 75 percent of children receiving sealants through S-BSPs. CONCLUSIONS In Ohio, targeting S-BSPs by family income-based school-level criteria was effective in reaching higher risk children.

Introduccion: los programas de aplicacion de selladores dentales a ninos en edad escolar fomentan el uso de estos productos y reducen la caries. Estos programas se aplican en colegios cuyo alumnado pertenece a familias de rentas bajas; y su objetivo es el sellado de los molares permanentes de reciente aparicion. En 2004 y 2005, los Centros para la Prevencion y el Control de las Enfermedades (CDC) de Estados Unidos patrocinaron una serie de reuniones de expertos con el fin de que se actualizaran las recomendaciones de uso de selladores dentales en programas dirigidos a la poblacion escolar, en lo que se refiere a la evidencia relativa a la eficacia de estos productos, la valoracion de la caries y la seleccion de las tecnicas de aplicacion, asi como la estimacion del riesgo de caries en ninos que abandonaran los programas despues de la aplicacion del sellador. El grupo de expertos identifico tambien aquellos temas en los que era necesaria una revision adicional de la evidencia. Tipos de estudios revisados: este grupo de expertos utilizo revisiones sistematicas siempre que estuvieran disponibles. Desde el ano 2005, los CDC y otros expertos realizaron varios analisis independientes de aquellos temas para los que no se disponia de revisiones, incluyendo una revision sistematica de la eficacia de los selladores en el manejo de la caries. Resultados: las recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia aconsejan el sellado de las superficies libres de caries, la valoracion visual, el uso profilactico del cepillo de dientes o pieza de mano y la aplicacion de selladores de fisuras a los ninos, incluso cuando es probable que abandonen el programa. Implicaciones clinicas: estas recomendaciones estan en concordancia con la evidencia actual y proporcionan directrices apropiadas para el uso de selladores en programas escolares. Este estudio puede incrementar tambien el grado de concienciacion de los profesionales con respecto a estos programas y su importancia y eficacia como medida de salud publica que complementa la atencion clinica. Palabras clave: caries; odontologia basada en la evidencia; selladores de fosas y fisuras; odontologia preventiva; salud publica/odontologia comunitaria.

BackgroundSchool-based sealant programs (SBSPs) increase sealant use and reduce caries. Programs target schools that serve children from low-income families and focus on sealing newly erupted permanent molars. In 2004 and 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, sponsored meetings of an expert work group to update recommendations for sealant use in SBSPs on the basis of available evidence regarding the effectiveness of sealants on sound and carious pit and fissure surfaces, caries assessment and selected sealant placement techniques, and the risk of caries' developing in sealed teeth among children who might be lost to follow-up. The work group also identified topics for which additional evidence review was needed.Types of Studies ReviewedThe work group used systematic reviews when available. Since 2005, staff members at CDC and subject-matter experts conducted several independent analyses of topics for which no reviews existed. These reviews include a systematic review of the effectiveness of sealants in managing caries.ResultsThe evidence supports recommendations to seal sound surfaces and noncavitated lesions, to use visual assessment to detect surface cavitation, to use a toothbrush or handpiece prophylaxis to clean tooth surfaces, and to provide sealants to children even if follow-up cannot be ensured.Clinical ImplicationsThese recommendations are consistent with the current state of the science and provide appropriate guidance for sealant use in SBSPs. This report also may increase practitioners' awareness of the SBSP as an important and effective public health approach that complements clinical care.

Objectives This study sought to determine whether estimates of oral health-related indicators generated using a relatively small purposive sample of schools were reasonable. Methods We collected and analyzed data from two open-mouth school oral health surveys conducted in Ohio in 2004–2005. In each survey, data were gathered for nine indicators using direct observation and a questionnaire. The first survey used unweighted data from 23 sentinel schools purposively selected to represent the state based on the findings of a large 1998–1999 oral health survey (337 schools). The second survey used weighted data aggregated from 374 schools randomly selected to represent each of Ohio’s 88 counties. The point estimates from the first data set were compared with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the second and Chi-square measures were estimated to determine statistically significant differences. Results For six of nine indicators, point estimates for the sentinel schools fell within the relatively narrow 95% CIs generated for the 374 schools sampled at the county level. Only one indicator (history of tooth decay) was found to be significantly different according to Chi-square analysis. Conclusions Ohio’s sentinel schools approach provided reasonable estimates suitable for annual reporting as required for the Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Data collected in this manner are likely to be reasonable population estimates and less costly than larger surveys.

Background. This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations for use of pit-and-fissure sealants developed by an expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The panel addressed the following clinical questions: Under what circumstances should sealants be placed to prevent caries? Does placing sealants over early (noncavitated) lesions prevent progression of the lesion? Are there conditions that favor the placement of resin-based versus glass ionomer cement sealants in terms of retention or caries prevention? Are there any techniques that could improve sealants' retention and effectiveness in caries prevention?Types of Studies Reviewed. Staff of the ADA Division of Science conducted a MEDLINE search to identify systematic reviews and clinical studies published after the identified systematic reviews. At the panel's request, the ADA Division of Science staff conducted additional searches for clinical studies related to specific topics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provided unpublished systematic reviews that since have been accepted for publication.Results. The expert panel developed clinical recommendations for each clinical question. The panel concluded that sealants are effective in caries prevention and that sealants can prevent the progression of early noncavitated carious lesions.Clinical Implications. These recommendations are presented as a resource to be considered in the clinical decision-making process. As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences. The evidence indicates that sealants can be used effectively to prevent the initiation and progression of dental caries.

Objectives: Since Ohio school-based dental sealant programs target economically disadvantaged groups, simple comparison of sealant prevalence between schools with sealant programs and those without is problematic due to underlying disparities between the two in sealant prevalence. The goal of our analysis was to estimate the impact of sealant programs on sealant prevalence among third graders in Ohio by applying a statistical model to data from a 1998-99 Ohio oral health screening survey of schoolchildren to control for differences in background characteristics. Methods: Included in the analysis were 9,747 third graders at randomly selected schools in Ohio. Chi-square statistics and survey logistic regression were used to analyze the association of sealant presence with school sealant program participation, dental care payment method, sex, race, and school lunch program eligibility. Results: The unadjusted odds ratio for dental sealant presence was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [Cl]=2.6, 4.4; P<.01). Adjusting for race and income, the odds of having dental sealants among children in schools with dental sealant programs increased to 4.8 (95% Cl=3.5, 6.5; P<.01). Conclusions: Not controlling for confounders can result in underestimation of the impact of targeted school sealant programs.

Results: Currently, the work of the committees is in its early stages. By the time the Surgeon General's Conference, the strategic plans will be in their final stages and the joint report on access to care will be available for distribution. The timing of the presentation of the state level policy recommendation will coincide with the early stages of the state's biennial budgeting process.

In spite of significant improvements in the oral health of Americans, dental caries still affects a majority of school-aged children. Its distribution is uneven, with a small proportion of the children experiencing a greater burden of the disease. In addition, caries in children's permanent teeth is predominantly a disease of the pits and fissures. The use of dental sealants has the potential to significantly reduce the disease burden. Although sealants are safe and effective, their use continues to be low. Efforts are needed to make sealants a covered benefit under all insurance plans and to encourage their appropriate use. This paper provides a review of the changes in the prevalence and distribution of dental caries, the effectiveness of sealants, and guidelines for the appropriate use of sealants in public health programs and private practice.

Dental sealants have proved an effective way to prevent caries development. The authors discuss available options in sealant materials and placement. They also outline key points in sealant application.

Journal of Public Health DentistryVolume 55, Issue 5 p. 259-260 Promotion and Use of Pit and Fissure Sealants: An Introduction to the Special Issue Mark Siegal DDS, MPH, Mark Siegal DDS, MPH Chief, Bureau of Oral Health Services, Ohio Department of Health, 246 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43266–0588. Internet: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Mark Siegal DDS, MPH, Mark Siegal DDS, MPH Chief, Bureau of Oral Health Services, Ohio Department of Health, 246 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43266–0588. Internet: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: December 1995 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1995.tb02379.xCitations: 4AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. References 1 Ripa LW. Sealants revisited: an update on the effectiveness of pit-and-fissuie sealants. Caries Res 1993; 27(Suppl 1): 77– 82. 2 Swift EJ. The effect of sealants on dental caries: a review. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 116: 7004. 3 Brunelle JA. Prevalence of dental sealants in US schoolchildren [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1989; 68(Spec Iss): 183. 4 Brunelle JA. Oral health of United States children. The national survey of dental caries in US schoolchildren: 1986–87. National and regional findings. NIH pub no 89–2247. Washington , DC : US Department of Health and Human Services, 1989. 5 Cohen LA, Romberg E, LaBelle AD. The use of pit and fissure sealants in private practice: a national survey. J Public Health Dent 1988; 48: 26– 35. 6 Bowman PA, Fitzgerald CM. Utah dentists' sealant usage survey. ASDC J Dent Child 1990; 57: 134– 8. 7 Gonzalez CD, Frazier PJ, Messer LB. Sealant use by general practitioners: a Minnesota survey. ASDC J Dent Child 1991; 58: 38– 45. 8 Siegal MD, Garcia AI, Kandray DP, Giljahn LK. The use of sealants by Ohio dentists. I Public Health Dent (in press). 9 US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. DHHS pub no (PHS) 91–50213. Washington , DC : US Government Printing Office, 1990. 10 Health Care Financing Administration. State Medicaid manual. Part 5—early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSDT). Section 5124.B.2.b. HCFA pub no 45–5. Washington , DC : US Department of Health and Human Services, 1990. 11 American Dental Association, Council on Dental Care Programs, Dental programs in Medicaid: the 1990 survey. Chicago : ADA, 1991. 12 Rozier RG, Bader JD, Weintraub JA, King-Sutton B, Ramsey DL. Trends in the provision of dental sealants in Medicaid [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1994; 73(Spec Iss): 141. 13 Phipps KR, Mason JD, Fleming DW. Dental health of schoolchildren—Oregon, 1991–92. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1993; 42: 887– 91. 14 Bureau of Dental Health. The oral health of Ohioans, 1993. Columbus : Ohio Department of Health, 1995. 15 Oral Health Services, Indiana State Department of Health and Oral Health Research Institute, Indiana Oral Health Survey, 1992–93: final report, Indianapolis : Indiana University School of Dentistry, 1994. 16 JE Bader, ed. Risk assessment in dentistry. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Dental Ecology, 1990. 17 NW Johnson, ed. Risk markers for oral diseases. Vol 1. Dental caries: markers of high and low risk groups and individuals. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1991. 18 American Dental Association. Caries diagnosis and risk assessment: a review of preventive strategies and management. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126(Spec Suppl): 1S– 24S. 19 Anusavice KJ. Preservative dentistry: the standard of care for the 21st century. J Public Health Dent 1995; 55: 67– 8. 20 Robison VA, Rozier RG, Weintraub. Caries status and subsequent sealant decisions in NC Medicaid recipients [Abstract]. J Dent Res (in press). 21 Proceedings of the workshop on guidelines for sealant use: recommendations. J Public Health Dent 1995; 55(Spec Iss): 263– 73. 22 National Institute of Dental Research. Consensus Development Conference, Dec 5–7, 1983. Dental sealants in the prevention of tooth decay. J Dent Educ 1984; 48(Suppl): 1– 134. Citing Literature Volume55, Issue5December 1995Pages 259-260 ReferencesRelatedInformation

SummaryA survey of dentists who were licensed by, and resided in, New Mexico as of September 1982 was conducted for the purpose of determining their willingness to treat patients with disabilities. A referral directory was compiled and disseminated to organizations and agencies which serve such clients.