Search

Objective: A conceptual model was designed and tested to predict immigrant children's oral health in Canada by examining parental acculturation and perceived social support (PSS) using structural equation modelling., Methods: A convenience sample of first-generation immigrant parents and their children aged 2-12 years were recruited by multilingual community workers in Edmonton, Canada. Parents completed a validated questionnaire on demographics, child's oral health (OH) behaviours, parental acculturation and PSS. Dental examinations determined children's dental caries rate using DMFT/dmft index. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to analyse the data., Results: A total of 336 families participated in this study. The average parental acculturation level was 10.46 with a maximum of 15, and the average PSS was 63.27 with a maximum of 75. SEM showed that 77% of the variance of DMFT/dmft scores in children was explained by parental PSS, acculturation level, immigration-related variables, socioeconomic variables and children's OH behaviours. The direct effect of parental PSS was associated with a significantly reduced rate of dental caries (β = -.076, p-value = .008) and lower sugar consumption (β = -.17, p-value = .04). While the mediation effect of parental acculturation on PSS was associated with positive OH behaviours of children (e.g., toothbrushing frequency and dental care utilization), the indirect effect was negatively associated with caries rate (β = .77, p-value = .00)., Conclusions: The direct effect of Parental Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was associated with more favourable oral health behaviours and a lower prevalence of dental caries, while the mediation effect of acculturation was linked to a higher prevalence of dental caries., (© 2024 The Authors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In this meta-epidemiological study, we aimed to examine associations between treatment effect size estimates and sponsorship bias in oral health randomized clinical trials., Methods: We selected oral health related meta-analyses that included a minimum of five randomized controlled trials. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to influence of sponsorship bias. We quantified the extent of bias associated with influence of sponsorship on the magnitude of effect size estimates of continuous variables using a two-level meta-meta-analytic approach with random-effects models to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity., Results: We initially identified 540 randomized trials included in 64 meta-analyses. Risk of sponsorship bias was judged as being "unclear" in 72.8% (n = 393) of the trials, while it was assessed as "low" in 16.7% (n = 90) and as "high" in 10.6% (n = 57) of the trials. Using a meta-epidemiological analysis (37 meta-analyses, including 328 trials that analyzed 85,934 patients), we identified statistically significant larger treatment effect size estimates in trials that had "high or unclear" risk of sponsorship bias (difference in treatment effect size estimates=0.10; 95% confidence intervals: 0.02 to 0.19) than in trials that had "low" risk of sponsorship bias., Conclusions: We identified significant differences in treatment effect size estimates between dental trials based on sponsorship bias. Treatment effect size estimates were 0.10 larger in trials with "high or unclear" risk of sponsorship bias., Practical Implications: Clinicians should have an adequate knowledge of sponsorship bias in a clinical trial and be able to estimate the degree to which the conclusions of a systematic review are synthesized and interpreted, based on trials with low risk of sponsorship bias., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Adaptation to social life changes after migration may be beneficial or detrimental to migrants' oral health outcomes and related behaviors. This systematic review aims to synthesize the scientific literature on the impact of social support on immigrants' and ethnic minorities' oral health status and/or behaviors., Methods: A comprehensive electronic search, up to November 2018, was conducted using five electronic databases. We included cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative studies that examine associations between social support and oral health outcomes among immigrants and ethnic minorities. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed in duplicate and the Newcastle-Ottawa checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the quantitative studies., Results: A total of 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. Included studies examined multiple oral health outcomes such as dental care utilization, oral health behaviors, oral health problems, self-rated oral health, oral health knowledge, and oral health-related quality of life among immigrants and ethnic minorities. The social support level is assessed either by social support indicators or by adapting certain scales. Overall, social support was found to be positively associated with dental care utilization, number of carious teeth, periodontal disease, oral health behaviors, oral health knowledge, oral health-related quality of life, and self-rated oral health., Conclusion: Although immigrants and ethnic minorities encounter several challenges after migration to a new country that could affect their oral health, social support from their surrounding environment in the form of structural or functional support plays an important role in improving their oral health outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: Cultural changes faced by immigrants and ethnic minorities after moving to a host country may have a detrimental or beneficial influence on their oral health and oral health-related behaviors. Therefore, this paper reviews the literature to see the impact of acculturation on immigrants and ethnic minorities' oral health outcomes., Methods: We searched seven electronic databases up to January 2018. All cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative studies that examined associations between acculturation and oral health status and/or oral health behaviors among ethnic minority and immigrant population[s] were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed in duplicate. The Newcastle-Ottawa checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the quantitative studies. A meta-analytic approach was not feasible., Results: A total of 42 quantitative studies were identified. The studies showed a positive association between acculturation and oral health status/behaviors. The most frequently used acculturation indicators were language spoken by immigrant and ethnic minorities and length of stay at the host country. High-acculturated immigrant and ethnic minority groups demonstrated better oral health outcomes, oral health behaviors, dental care utilization, and dental knowledge., Conclusions: According to existing evidence, a positive effect of acculturation on oral health status and behaviors was found., Practical Implications: Dental practitioners should be culturally competent to provide the appropriate services and treatments to immigrant and ethnic minorities. Policymakers should also be sensitive to cultural diversities and properly address the unique needs of each group in order to maintain oral health equity., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Recent methodologic evidence suggests that lack of blinding in randomized trials can result in under- or overestimation of the treatment effect size. The objective of this study is to quantify the extent of bias associated with blinding in randomized controlled trials of oral health interventions., Methods: We selected all oral health meta-analyses that included a minimum of five randomized controlled trials. We extracted data, in duplicate, related to nine blinding-related criteria, namely: patient blinding, assessor blinding, care-provider blinding, investigator blinding, statistician blinding, blinding of both patients and assessors, study described as "double blind", blinding of patients, assessors, and care providers concurrently, and the appropriateness of blinding. We quantified the impact of bias associated with blinding on the magnitude of effect size using a two-level meta-meta-analytic approach with a random effects model to allow for intra- and inter-meta-analysis heterogeneity., Results: We identified 540 randomized controlled trials, included in 64 meta-analyses, analyzing data from 137,957 patients. We identified significantly larger treatment effect size estimates in trials that had inadequate patient blinding (difference in treatment effect size = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.23), lack of blinding of both patients and assessors (difference = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.32), and lack of blinding of patients, assessors, and care-providers concurrently (difference = 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.25). In contrast, assessor blinding (difference = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.18), caregiver blinding (difference = 0.02; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.09), principal-investigator blinding (difference = - 0.02; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.06), describing a trial as "double-blind" (difference = 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.22), and lack of an appropriate method of blinding (difference = 0.06; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.18) were not associated with over- or underestimated treatment effect size., Conclusions: We found significant differences in treatment effect size estimates between oral health trials based on lack of patient and assessor blinding. Treatment effect size estimates were 0.19 and 0.14 larger in trials with lack of blinding of both patients and assessors and blinding of patients, assessors, and care-providers concurrently. No significant differences were identified in other blinding criteria. Investigators of oral health systematic reviews should perform sensitivity analyses based on the adequacy of blinding in included trials.

Objectives: To identify all systematic reviews (SRs) published in the domain of oral health research and describe them in terms of their epidemiological and descriptive characteristics., Design: Cross sectional, descriptive study., Methods: An electronic search of seven databases was performed from inception through May 2012; bibliographies of relevant publications were also reviewed. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were oral health SRs defined as therapeutic or non-therapeutic investigations that studied a topic or an intervention related to dental, oral or craniofacial diseases/disorders. Data were extracted from all the SRs based on a number of epidemiological and descriptive characteristics. Data were analysed descriptively for all the SRs, within each of the nine dental specialities, and for Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs separately., Results: 1,188 oral health (126 Cochrane and 1062 non-Cochrane) SRs published from 1991 through May 2012 were identified, encompassing the nine dental specialties. Over half (n = 676; 56.9%) of the SRs were published in specialty oral health journals, with almost all (n = 1,178; 99.2%) of the SRs published in English and almost none of the non-Cochrane SRs (n = 11; 0.9%) consisting of updates of previously published SRs. 75.3% of the SRs were categorized as therapeutic, with 64.5% examining non-drug interventions, while approximately half (n = 150/294; 51%) of the non-therapeutic SRs were classified as epidemiological SRs. The SRs included a median of 15 studies, with a meta-analysis conducted in 43.6%, in which a median of 9 studies/1 randomized trial were included in the largest meta-analysis conducted. Funding was received for 25.1% of the SRs, including nearly three-quarters (n = 96; 76.2%) of the Cochrane SRs., Conclusion: Epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of the 1,188 oral health SRs varied across the nine dental specialties and by SR category (Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane). There is a clear need for more updates of SRs in all the dental specialties.

Objectives: This cross‐sectional study aimed to examine the associations between parental acculturation level and strategies and children's caries experience and oral health (OH) behaviors. Methods: Participants were immigrant parents of children aged 2–12 years. Data were collected by validated questionnaires gathering information on socio‐demographics, child's OH behaviors, and parents'; acculturation and dental examinations determining child's caries experience using DMFT/dmft index. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used. Results: Three hundred and thirty‐six parent/child dyads completed the study. Length of residency (B = 0.103; 95% CI: 0.064, 0.141) parents' education (B = 1.691; 95% CI: 1.228, 2.155), and household income (B = −0.959; 95% CI: −1.566, −0.352) significantly predicted acculturation level. Parents with high Canadian cultural knowledge reported higher frequency of children's toothbrushing (p‐value = 0.015). Parents of children who consumed sugar >1/day had higher mean scores of acculturation to Canadian culture (p‐value = 0.016), English language proficiency (p‐value = 0.024), and Canadian food adoption (p‐value = 0.046). Parents of children who visited the dentist within last 12 months had significantly higher assimilation and lower separation mean scores. Parents of children who visited dentist because of dental problems had higher marginalization mean score than those who went for check‐ups (p‐value = 0.046). Parental acculturation was not significantly correlated with their children's dmft/DMFT level. Conclusions: Children of highly acculturated parents reported higher toothbrushing frequency and were more likely to consume sugar than children of less acculturated parents. Assimilated parents reported more and marginalized parents reported less favorable OH behaviors than other categories. Parental acculturation level or strategy was not associated with children's caries experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions and the development of these aspects over time. Methods: We included 540 randomized clinical trials from 64 selected systematic reviews. We extracted, in duplicate, details from each of the selected randomized clinical trials with respect to publication and trial characteristics, reporting and methodologic characteristics, and Cochrane risk of bias domains. We analyzed data using logistic regression and Chi-square statistics. Results: Sequence generation was assessed to be inadequate (at unclear or high risk of bias) in 68% (n = 367) of the trials, while allocation concealment was inadequate in the majority of trials (n = 464; 85.9%). Blinding of participants and blinding of the outcome assessment were judged to be inadequate in 28.5% (n = 154) and 40.5% (n = 219) of the trials, respectively. A sample size calculation before the initiation of the study was not performed/reported in 79.1% (n = 427) of the trials, while the sample size was assessed as adequate in only 17.6% (n = 95) of the trials. Two thirds of the trials were not described as double blinded (n = 358; 66.3%), while the method of blinding was appropriate in 53% (n = 286) of the trials. We identified a significant decrease over time (1955–2013) in the proportion of trials assessed as having inadequately addressed methodological quality items (P < 0.05) in 30 out of the 40 quality criteria, or as being inadequate (at high or unclear risk of bias) in five domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data, other sources of bias, and overall risk of bias. Conclusions: The risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of oral health interventions have improved over time; however, further efforts that contribute to the development of more stringent methodology and detailed reporting of trials are still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]