Search

Objectives: Birth season has been inconsistently associated with anthropometrics, bone fractures, and malocclusion. Our aim was to assess the association between birth season and anthropometrics (height, weight, birth weight), bone fractures and dental malocclusion in the United States. Methods: US surveys conducted between 1963‐1973 assessed 16 152 6‐to‐21‐year‐old participants. Prevalence ratios and mean differences were estimated using linear models using fall as reference. Results: Participants born in spring, when compared to fall, were of similar height (mean difference (MD) in height‐adjusted Z score 0.03, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): −0.01 to 0.08; P‐value =.17), weight (MD for weight‐adjusted Z‐score 0.00, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.04; P‐value =0.83), had similar rates of bone fractures (Prevalence Rate [PR] 1.07; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.22; P‐value =.28) and similar rates of dental malocclusion (MD of malocclusion index HLD −0.16; 95% confidence interval − 0.39 to 0.07; P =.18). Conclusion: We did not find an impact of birth season on anthropometrics, bone fractures, and dental malocclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate prevalence and severity of gingivitis in representative American adults. Methods: Subjects (1,000) in Loma Linda, California; Seattle, Washington; and Boston, Massachusetts were examined for Löe- Silness Gingivitis Index (GI). Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to determine significances in the GI between genders. The data among study sites and races were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks. The correlation of the GI and age was examined by the Spearman rank order correlation. Age differences among three sites were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA. Results: The race composition of the subjects (mean age 37.9) approximated to the 2004 U.S. Census data. The overall average GI was 1.055. Only 6.1% of subjects showed mean GI <0.50; most (93.9%) were ⩾ 0.50, with 55.7% ⩾ 1.00. There was a significant correlation (P< 0.001) between the age and GI. The males' GI was significantly higher (P< 0.00 1) than the females'; African-Americans showed a significantly higher GI (P< 0.05) than other races except for the Native-Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ignoring evidence on causes of disease such as smoking can harm public health. This report explores how public health experts started to ignore evidence that pediatric vitamin D deficiencies are associated with dental caries. Historical analyses show that an organization of clinical specialists, the American Dental Association (ADA), initiated this view. The ADA was a world-leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies. The ADA scientific council was enlisted in this endeavor and authorized the statement saying that "claims for vitamin D as a factor in tooth decay are not acceptable". This statement was ghost-written, the opposite of what the ADA scientific council had endorsed for 15 years, and the opposite of what the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Internal ADA documents are informative on the origin of this scientific conundrum; the ADA scientific council had ignored their scientific rules and was assisting ADA governing bodies in conflicts with the medical profession on advertising policies. The evidence presented here suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health.

Article Title and Bibliographic Information: Relationship between periodontal disease and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Wang J, Yang X, Zou X, Zhang Y, Wang J, Wang Y. J Periodontal Res. 2020 Oct;55(5):581-593. doi:10.1111/jre.12772. Epub 2020 Jun 25. PMID: 32,583,879., Source of Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China and Scientific Research foundation of the Health Planning Committee of Sichuan., Type of Study/design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The consensus of a leading scientific panel in 1930 was that oral hygiene products could not prevent dental caries. Their view was that dental caries prevention required the proper mineralisation of teeth and that vitamin D could achieve this goal. Over a hundred subsequent controlled trials, conducted over seven decades, largely confirmed that this scientific panel had made the right decisions. They had, in 1930, when it comes to dental caries, correctly endorsed vitamin D products as dental caries prophylactics and oral hygiene products as cosmetics. And yet, despite this consistent scientific evidence for close to a century, an opposing conventional wisdom emerged which thrives to this day: oral hygiene habits (without fluoride) protect the teeth from dental caries, and vitamin D plays no role in dental caries prevention. This historical analysis explores whether persistent advertising can deeply engrain memes on dental caries prevention which conflict with controlled trial results. The question is raised whether professional organisations, with a dependence on advertising revenues, can become complicit in amplifying advertised health claims which are inconsistent with the principles of evidence-based medicine., (© 2018 The Authors. Gerodontology published by Gerodontology Association and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This article presents evidence-based clinical recommendations developed by a panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. This report addresses the potential benefits and potential risks of screening for oral squamous cell carcinomas and the use of adjunctive screening aids to visualize and detect potentially malignant and malignant oral lesions., Types of Studies Reviewed: The panel members conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, identifying 332 systematic reviews and 1,499 recent clinical studies. They selected 5 systematic reviews and 4 clinical studies to use as a basis for developing recommendations., Results: The panel concluded that screening by means of visual and tactile examination to detect potentially malignant and malignant lesions may result in detection of oral cancers at early stages of development, but that there is insufficient evidence to determine if screening alters disease-specific mortality in asymptomatic people seeking dental care., Clinical Implications: The panel suggested that clinicians remain alert for signs of potentially malignant lesions or early-stage cancers while performing routine visual and tactile examinations in all patients, but particularly in those who use tobacco or who consume alcohol heavily. Additional research regarding oral cancer screening and the use of adjuncts is needed.

Background: Our objectives were to describe the prevalence of periodontal care (a marker of periodontitis) among persons with and without diabetes and to examine the association between periodontal care and diabetes., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis, using 5 years of electronic data from a population-based cohort (N = 46,132), aged 40 to 70 years, with dental and medical insurance, and ≥ 1 dental and ≥ 1 medical visit. Periodontal care (yes/no) was defined by dental claims codes for procedures used to manage periodontitis. The association between periodontal care and diabetes was determined using logistic regression adjusted for and stratified by age, sex, insurance type, smoking status, body mass index (BMI) (in kilograms per square meter), and resource utilization band (RUB) (a measure of expected health care utilization attributable to comorbidity)., Results: Overall, 11.2% (5,153 of 46,132) met diabetes criteria. The age-adjusted prevalence of periodontal care among those with and without diabetes was 39.1% and 32.5%, respectively (P <0.0001). The association between diabetes and periodontal care decreased with increasing age (interaction, P <0.0001), adjusting for BMI and RUB. The aged-stratified, adjusted odds ratio (OR) for periodontal care associated with diabetes was highest among those aged 40 to 44 years [OR, 1.6; confidence interval (CI), 1.30 to 1.97] and lowest among those aged 60 to 64 years (OR, 0.97; CI, 0.81 to 1.15) and was significant only among those aged 40 to 54 years., Conclusion: We found that the prevalence of periodontal care was significantly higher among those with diabetes compared to those without diabetes and that the magnitude of this association decreased with increasing age.