Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Headline
A composite fluoride intervention in primary dental care was neither effective nor cost effective in preventing dental caries in young children who were initially caries free
Abstract
Background:
Dental caries is the most common disease of childhood. The NHS guidelines promote preventative care in dental practices, particularly for young children. However, the cost-effectiveness of this policy has not been established.
Objective:
To measure the effects and costs of a composite fluoride intervention designed to prevent caries in young children attending dental services.
Design:
The study was a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1 : 1. Randomisation was by clinical trials unit, using randomised permuted blocks. Children/families were not blinded; however, outcome assessment was blinded to group assessment.
Setting:
The study took place in 22 NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland, UK.
Participants:
The study participants were children aged 2–3 years, who were caries free at baseline.
Interventions:
The intervention was composite in nature, comprising a varnish containing 22,600 parts per million (p.p.m.) fluoride, a toothbrush and a 50-ml tube of toothpaste containing 1450 p.p.m. fluoride; plus standardised, evidence-based prevention advice provided at 6-monthly intervals over 3 years. The control group received the prevention advice alone.
Main outcome measures:
The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were the number of decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces in primary dentition (dmfs) in caries-active children, the number of episodes of pain, the number of extracted teeth and the costs of care. Adverse reactions (ARs) were recorded.
Results:
A total of 1248 children (624 randomised to each group) were recruited and 1096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. A total of 87% of the intervention children and 85% of control children attended every 6-month visit (p = 0.77). In total, 187 (34%) children in the intervention group converted to caries active, compared with 213 (39%) in the control group [odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04; p = 0.11]. The mean number of tooth surfaces affected by caries was 7.2 in the intervention group, compared with 9.6 in the control group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups (p = 0.81). However, 164 out of the total of 400 (41%) children who converted to caries active reported toothache, compared with 62 out of 696 (9%) caries-free children (OR 7.1 95% CI 5.1 to 9.9; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children (p = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had ARs of a minor nature. The average direct dental care cost was £155.74 for the intervention group and £48.21 for the control group over 3 years (p < 0.05). The mean cost per carious surface avoided over the 3 years was estimated at £251.00.
Limitations:
The usual limitations of a trial such as generalisability and understanding the underlying reasons for the outcomes apply. There is no mean willingness-to-pay threshold available to enable assessment of value for money.
Conclusions:
A statistically significant effect could not be demonstrated for the primary outcome. Once caries develop, pain is likely. There was a statistically significant difference in dmfs in caries-active children in favour of the intervention. Although adequately powered, the effect size of the intervention was small and of questionable clinical and economic benefit.
Future work:
Future work should assess the caries prevention effects of interventions to reduce sugar consumption at the population and individual levels. Interventions designed to arrest the disease once it is established need to be developed and tested in practice.
Trial registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36180119 and EudraCT 2009-010725-39.
Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Contents
- Plain English summary
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Methods
- Trial design
- Changes to trial design after trial commencement
- Participants: including eligibility criteria
- Study settings
- Interventions
- Randomisation and blinding (sequence generation, type, allocation concealment mechanism, randomisation implementation and blinding)
- Outcomes (primary and secondary outcomes how and when they were assessed)
- Changes to outcomes after trial commencement
- Sample size
- Statistical methods including methods for additional analyses (subgroups, adjusted analyses and sensitivity analyses)
- Chapter 3. Results
- Chapter 4. Discussion
- Chapter 5. Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1 Evidence-based, standardised parental advice sheet
- Appendix 2 The Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice trial caries data recording form and clinical examination processes and procedures
- Appendix 3 The Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice trial questionnaire for parents
- Appendix 4 Additional health economic analyses
- Appendix 5 Additional analyses of caries, pain and extraction outcomes
- List of abbreviations
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/14/19. The contractual start date was in October 2009. The draft report began editorial review in October 2015 and was accepted for publication in April 2016. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Declared competing interests of authors
Martin Tickle reports provision of free toothpaste and toothbrushes from Colgate-Palmolive for the trial. Seamus Killough was chairperson of the Northern Ireland Council of the British Dental Association throughout this trial.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Seal or Varnish? A randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay.[Health Technol Assess. 2017]Seal or Varnish? A randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay.Chestnutt IG, Hutchings S, Playle R, Morgan-Trimmer S, Fitzsimmons D, Aawar N, Angel L, Derrick S, Drew C, Hoddell C, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2017 Apr; 21(21):1-256.
- Protocol for Northern Ireland Caries Prevention in Practice Trial (NIC-PIP) trial: a randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services.[BMC Oral Health. 2011]Protocol for Northern Ireland Caries Prevention in Practice Trial (NIC-PIP) trial: a randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services.Tickle M, Milsom KM, Donaldson M, Killough S, O'Neill C, Crealey G, Sutton M, Noble S, Greer M, Worthington HV. BMC Oral Health. 2011 Oct 10; 11:27. Epub 2011 Oct 10.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Caries Prevention in Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial.[J Dent Res. 2017]Cost-Effectiveness of Caries Prevention in Practice: A Randomized Controlled Trial.O'Neill C, Worthington HV, Donaldson M, Birch S, Noble S, Killough S, Murphy L, Greer M, Brodison J, Verghis R, et al. J Dent Res. 2017 Jul; 96(8):875-880. Epub 2017 May 18.
- Review One topical fluoride (toothpastes, or mouthrinses, or gels, or varnishes) versus another for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004]Review One topical fluoride (toothpastes, or mouthrinses, or gels, or varnishes) versus another for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; 2004(1):CD002780.
- Review Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004]Review Combinations of topical fluoride (toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, varnishes) versus single topical fluoride for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; 2004(1):CD002781.
- A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental carie...A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...