English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (cluster or parallel) evaluating school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, with data being pooled where appropriate. The GRADE approach was used to interpret findings.ResultsSix trials involving 19,498 children were included. Two were considered to be at low risk of bias, three at unclear risk and one at high risk. No conclusions could be made from four studies comparing traditional screening versus no screening because the evidence was inconsistent. Two trials evaluating criteria-based screening versus no screening suggested a possible benefit; RR = 1.07 (95% CI; 0.99-1.16). No difference was found when comparing criteria-based screening with traditional screening, RR = 1.01, (95% CI; 0.94-1.08). No trials reported on long-term follow-up or cost-effectiveness and adverse events.ConclusionsThe trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.

Insufficient evidence for the role of school dental screening in improving oral health