Methodological issues in oral health research: Intervention studies

Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 2.03). 02/2012; 40 Suppl 1(s1):15-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00661.x
Source: PubMed


To provide a broad overview of methodological issues in the design and evaluation of intervention studies in dental public health, with particular emphasis on explanatory trials, pragmatic trials and complex interventions.
We present a narrative summary of selected publications from the literature outlining both historical and recent challenges in the design and evaluation of intervention studies and describe some recent tools that may help researchers to address these challenges.
It is now recognised that few intervention studies in dental public health are purely explanatory or pragmatic. We describe the PRECIS tool which can be used by trialists to assess and display the position of their trial on a continuum between the extremes of explanatory and pragmatic trials. The tool aims to help trialists make design decisions that are in line with their stated aims. The increasingly complex nature of dental public health interventions presents particular design and evaluation challenges. The revised Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for the development and evaluation of complex interventions which emphasises the importance of planning and process evaluation is a welcome development. We briefly describe the MRC guidance and outline some examples of complex interventions in the field of oral health. The role of observational studies in monitoring public health interventions when the conduct of RCTs is not appropriate or feasible is acknowledged. We describe the STROBE statement and outline the implications of the STROBE guidelines for dental public health.
The methodological challenges in the design, conduct and reporting of intervention studies in oral health are considerable. The need to provide reliable evidence to support innovative new strategies in oral health policy is a major impetus in these fields. No doubt the 'Methodological Issues in Oral Health Research' group will have further opportunities to highlight this work.

31 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine the efficacy of a 10% chlorhexidine tooth coating in reducing the incidence of cavitated carious lesions in adults. Materials and methods: The trial was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo controlled study with 983 participants, receiving the application of either the active or the placebo coatings to the entire dentition. Four applications were made in the first month and one at the 7th month. The final examination was performed at 13 months. Results: Coronal caries showed a statistical reduction (p = 0.02). Examination of the results by site showed that the highest risk participants experienced the most significant preventive effect (p = 0.003). When two sites (uninsured and public health) are pooled the treatment p-value is 0.0009, interaction term has a p-value of 0.0001. Conclusion: 10% Chlorhexidine was highly effective in high risk participants with more than two cavities at the initial examination. This trial in conjunction with other published trials of this topical medication indicates that chlorhexidine exerts its action by preventing the transition of D1 lesions to cavitated lesions, not on sound to D1 lesions.
    Acta odontologica Scandinavica 01/2014; 72(7). DOI:10.3109/00016357.2013.871647 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing importance placed on conducting clinical trials in dentistry to provide a robust evidence base for the treatment provided, and models of care delivered. However, providing the evidence upon which to base such decisions is not straightforward, as the conduct of these trials is complex. Currently, only limited information is available about the strategies to deliver successful clinical trials in primary care settings, and even less available on dental clinical trials. Considerable knowledge and experience is lost once a trial is completed as details about effective management of a trial are generally not reported or disseminated to trial managers and researchers. This leads to loss of vital knowledge that could assist with the effective delivery of new trials. The aim of this study is to examine the conduct and delivery of five dental clinical trials across both Australia and the UK and identify the various factors that impacted upon their implementation. Findings suggest that early stakeholder engagement, and well-designed and managed trials, lead to improved outcomes for researchers, clinic staff and patients, and increases the potential for future dissemination and translation of information into practice.
    British dental journal official journal of the British Dental Association: BDJ online 06/2015; 218(11):629-634. DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.397 · 1.08 Impact Factor