Affiliation:
1. School of Dentistry Cardiff University Cardiff UK
2. York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences University of York York UK
3. School of Clinical Dentistry University of Sheffield Sheffield UK
4. School of Health and Related Research University of Sheffield Sheffield UK
5. School of Dentistry University of Leeds Leeds UK
6. Community Dental Service Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust Bradford UK
7. School of Dentistry University of Dundee Dundee UK
8. Department Psychology University of Sheffield Sheffield UK
9. FDI World Dental Federation Geneva Switzerland
10. School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law University of Dundee Dundee UK
Abstract
AbstractObjectivesThis multicentre, assessor‐blinded, two‐arm cluster randomized trial evaluated the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention promoting toothbrushing for preventing dental caries in UK secondary schools.MethodsPupils aged 11–13 years with their own mobile telephone attending secondary schools with above average free school meals eligibility were randomized (at year‐group level) to receive a lesson and twice‐daily text messages or to usual care. Year‐groups (n = 84) from 42 schools including 4680 pupils (intervention, n = 2262; control, n = 2418) were randomized.ResultsIn 2383 participants with valid data at baseline and 2.5 years, the primary outcome of presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion (D4‐6 MFT [Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth] in permanent teeth using International Caries Detection and Assessment System) was 44.6% in the intervention group and 43.0% in control (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.85–1.26, p = .72). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes of presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion (D1‐6 MFT), number of D4‐6 MFT and D1‐6 MFT, plaque and bleeding scores or health‐related‐ (Child Health Utility 9D) or oral health‐related‐ quality of life (CARIES‐QC). However, twice‐daily toothbrushing, reported by 77.6% of pupils at baseline, increased at 6 months (intervention, 86.9%; control, 83.0%; OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03–1.63, p = .03), but returned to no difference at 2.5 years (intervention, 81.0%; control, 79.9%; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84–1.30, p = .69). Estimated incremental costs and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) of the intervention, relative to control, were £1.02 (95% CI −1.29 to 3.23) and −0.003 (95% CI −0.009 to 0.002), respectively, with a 7% chance of being cost‐effective (£20 000/QALY gained threshold).ConclusionThere was no evidence of statistically significant difference for caries prevalence at 2.5‐years. The intervention's positive 6‐month toothbrushing behaviour change did not translate into caries reduction. (ISRCTN 12139369). COVID‐19 pandemic adversly affected follow‐up.
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Dentistry
Reference26 articles.
1. The impact of dental caries on children and young people: what they have to say?
2. The impact of dental caries and its treatment under general anaesthetic on children and their families
3. Family Impacts of Severe Dental Caries among Children in the United Kingdom
4. PittsNB ChadwickB AndersonT.Children's dental health survey 2013. Report 2: dental disease and damage in children. England Wales and Northern Ireland. Health and Social Care Information Centre. Published 2015. Accessed June 15 2021.https://digital.nhs.uk/data‐and‐information/publications/statistical/children‐s‐dental‐health‐survey/child‐dental‐health‐survey‐2013‐england‐wales‐and‐northern‐ireland
5. Socioeconomic Inequality and Caries