BACKGROUND: For people with physical, sensory and cognitive limitations due to stroke, the routine practice of oral health care (OHC) may become a challenge. Evidence-based supported oral care intervention is essential for this patient group.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of OHC interventions with usual care or other treatment options for ensuring oral health in people after a stroke.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group and Cochrane Oral Health Group trials registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases in February 2019. We scanned reference lists from relevant papers and contacted authors and researchers in the field. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted other researchers. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated one or more interventions designed to improve the cleanliness and health of the mouth, tongue and teeth in people with a stroke who received assisted OHC led by healthcare staff. We included trials with a mixed population provided we could extract the stroke-specific data. The primary outcomes were dental plaque or denture plaque. Secondary outcomes included presence of oral disease, presence of related infection and oral opportunistic pathogens related to OHC and pneumonia, stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes to OHC, and patient satisfaction and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles according to prespecified selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We sought clarification from investigators when required. Where suitable statistical data were available, we combined the selected outcome data in pooled meta-analyses. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (22 randomised comparisons) involving 3631 participants with data for 1546 people with stroke met the selection criteria. OHC interventions compared with usual care Seven trials (2865 participants, with data for 903 participants with stroke, 1028 healthcare providers, 94 informal carers) investigated OHC interventions compared with usual care. Multi-component OHC interventions showed no evidence of a difference in the mean score (DMS) of dental plaque one month after the intervention was delivered (DMS -0.66, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.09; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 83%; P = 0.08; very low-quality evidence). Stroke survivors had less plaque on their dentures when staff had access to the multi-component OHC intervention (DMS -1.31, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.66; 1 trial, 38 participants; P < 0.0001; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in gingivitis (DMS -0.60, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.45; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 93%; P = 0.26: very low-quality evidence) or denture-induced stomatitis (DMS -0.33, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.26; 1 trial, 38 participants; P = 0.69; low-quality evidence) among participants receiving the multi-component OHC protocol compared with usual care one month after the intervention. There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving a multi-component OHC intervention (99 participants; 5 incidents of pneumonia) compared with those receiving usual care (105 participants; 1 incident of pneumonia) (OR 4.17, CI 95% 0.82 to 21.11; 1 trial, 204 participants; P = 0.08; low-quality evidence). OHC training for stroke survivors and healthcare providers significantly improved their OHC knowledge at one month after training (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.35; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 94%; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). Pooled data one month after training also showed evidence of a difference between stroke survivor and providers' oral health attitudes (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 65%; P = 0.06; very low-quality evidence). OHC interventions compared with placebo Three trials (394 participants, with data for 271 participants with stroke) compared an OHC intervention with placebo. There were no data for primary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving an OHC intervention compared with placebo (OR 0.39, CI 95% 0.14 to 1.09; 2 trials, 242 participants; I2 = 42%; P = 0.07; low-quality evidence). However, decontamination gel reduced the incidence of pneumonia among the intervention group compared with placebo gel group (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.84; 1 trial, 203 participants; P = 0.028). There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants treated with povidone-iodine compared with a placebo (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.51; 1 trial, 39 participants; P = 0.77). One OHC intervention compared with another OHC intervention Twelve trials (372 participants with stroke) compared one OHC intervention with another OHC intervention. There was no difference in dental plaque scores between those participants that received an enhanced multi-component OHC intervention compared with conventional OHC interventions at three months (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.25; 1 trial, 61 participants; P = 0.78; low-quality evidence). There were no data for denture plaque.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that OHC interventions can improve the cleanliness of patient's dentures and stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes. There is limited low-quality evidence that selective decontamination gel may be more beneficial than placebo at reducing the incidence of pneumonia. Improvements in the cleanliness of a patient's own teeth was limited. We judged the quality of the evidence included within meta-analyses to be low or very low quality, and this limits our confidence in the results. We still lack high-quality evidence of the optimal approach to providing OHC to people after stroke.
BACKGROUND: Poor oral health has been a persistent problem in nursing home residents for decades, with severe consequences for residents and the health care system. Two major barriers to providing appropriate oral care are residents' responsive behaviors to oral care and residents' lack of ability or motivation to perform oral care on their own.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that nursing home care providers can apply to either prevent/overcome residents' responsive behaviors to oral care, or enable/motivate residents to perform their own oral care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases Medline, EMBASE, Evidence Based Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science for intervention studies assessing the effectiveness of eligible strategies. Two reviewers independently (a) screened titles, abstracts and retrieved full-texts; (b) searched key journal contents, key author publications, and reference lists of all included studies; and (c) assessed methodological quality of included studies. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus. We conducted a narrative synthesis of study results.
RESULTS: We included three one-group pre-test, post-test studies, and one cross-sectional study. Methodological quality was low (n = 3) and low moderate (n = 1). Two studies assessed strategies to enable/motivate nursing home residents to perform their own oral care, and to studies assessed strategies to prevent or overcome responsive behaviors to oral care. All studies reported improvements of at least some of the outcomes measured, but interpretation is limited due to methodological problems.
CONCLUSIONS: Potentially promising strategies are available that nursing home care providers can apply to prevent/overcome residents' responsive behaviors to oral care or to enable/motivate residents to perform their own oral care. However, studies assessing these strategies have a high risk for bias. To overcome oral health problems in nursing homes, care providers will need practical strategies whose effectiveness was assessed in robust studies.
OBJECTIVE: Oral diseases and conditions are prevalent among older people with dementia and cognitive impairment. While many interventions have been advocated for use in this population, evidence for their effectiveness is unclear. Our objective was to review systematically the content and effectiveness of interventions and implementation strategies used to improve or maintain the oral health of people with dementia or cognitive impairment.
METHODS: Original studies published in English at any time until January 2015 were identified through electronic searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane databases and hand searches of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Two investigators independently abstracted study characteristics and assessed the methodological quality of eligible studies. Results were presented as a narrative review because significant heterogeneity among included studies precluded a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The 18 included studies varied considerably in terms of size, scope and focus. Only two studies were identified that had been designed specifically for and examined exclusively in people with dementia or cognitive impairment. All studies were in residential care; none was population-based. While several studies reported positive effects, a number of methodological weaknesses were identified and the overall quality of included studies was poor. The specific outcomes targeted varied across studies but most studies focused almost exclusively on proximal clinical oral health outcomes such as levels of dental or denture plaque. Attempts to measure intervention integrity were limited and there was usually little or no effort to evaluate intervention effects over a sustained period.
CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high quality evidence to support the effectiveness of oral health interventions and implementation strategies for older people with dementia or cognitive impairment. More rigorous, large scale research is needed in this area. Recommendations are provided to improve the overall quality of evaluation in this area. Emphasis must be placed on developing evidence-based, achievable and sustainable oral health strategies if the needs of people with dementia and cognitive impairment are to be met into the future.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is the gradual loss of one's ability to learn, remember, pay attention, and make decisions. Cognitively impaired elderly people are a challenging patient population for dental health care professionals and may be at higher risk of developing oral health diseases. The authors systematically reviewed interventions effective at improving dental health in patients with cognitive impairment and described research gaps remaining.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: In a comprehensive search of multiple databases, the authors identified 2,255 studies published in the English language from 1995 through March 2016. The authors included studies if the investigators evaluated oral health measures after an intervention in patients 65 years or older with cognitive impairment or dementia. Nine full-text articles met the criteria for inclusion.
RESULTS: Only 1 study was a randomized control trial, whereas all others lacked appropriate controls. Investigators studied the effects of dental treatments, battery-powered devices for oral hygiene, and training of care staff members. Most interventions improved some aspect of the oral health of patients with dementia, and results were more pronounced when patients required assistance while performing oral hygiene tasks or had poor oral health at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A basic care plan for patients with dementia should, at the minimum, match prevention strategies recommended for healthy elderly patients. Dental health care professionals should promote oral hygiene education for caregivers for elderly patients with cognitive impairment. There is a wide gap in knowledge regarding effective methods specifically to improve oral health in patients with dementia.
BACKGROUND: Oral health of nursing home residents is generally poor, with severe consequences for residents' general health and quality of life and for the health care system. Care aides in nursing homes provide up to 80% of direct care (including oral care) to residents, but providing oral care is often challenging. Interventions to improve oral care must tailor to identified barriers and facilitators to be effective. This review identifies and synthesizes the evidence on barriers and facilitators care aides perceive in providing oral care to nursing home residents.
METHODS: We systematically searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Evidence Based Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched by hand the contents of key journals, publications of key authors, and reference lists of all studies included. We included qualitative and quantitative research studies that assess barriers and facilitators, as perceived by care aides, to providing oral care to nursing home residents. We conducted a thematic analysis of barriers and facilitators, extracted prevalence of care aides reporting certain barriers and facilitators from studies reporting quantitative data, and conducted random-effects meta-analyses of prevalence.
RESULTS: We included 45 references that represent 41 unique studies: 15 cross-sectional studies, 13 qualitative studies, 7 mixed methods studies, 3 one-group pre-post studies, and 3 randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was generally weak. We identified barriers and facilitators related to residents, their family members, care providers, organization of care services, and social interactions. Pooled estimates (95% confidence intervals) of barriers were: residents resisting care=45% (15%-77%); care providers' lack of knowledge, education or training in providing oral care=24% (7%-47%); general difficulties in providing oral care=26% (19%-33%); lack of time=31% (17%-47%); general dislike of oral care=19% (8%-33%); and lack of staff=22% (13%-31%).
CONCLUSIONS: We found a lack of robust evidence on barriers and facilitators that care aides perceive in providing oral care to nursing home residents, suggesting a need for robust research studies in this area. Effective strategies to overcome barriers and to increase facilitators in providing oral care are one of the most critical research gaps in the area of improving oral care for nursing home residents. Strategies to prevent or manage residents' responsive behaviors and to improve care aides' oral care knowledge are especially needed.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the effectiveness of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) in the management of caries in older adults.
BACKGROUND: Silver diamine fluoride has been extensively researched and proven effective for caries prevention and arrest in children. Limited studies support its effectiveness in adult and older adult populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple databases were searched according to specified inclusion-exclusion criteria. Quality assessment used modified Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine worksheets.
RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials were identified that addressed the effectiveness of SDF on root caries in older adults, but none addressed coronal caries. Root caries prevented fraction and arrest rate for SDF were significantly higher than placebo. The prevented fraction for caries prevention for SDF compared to placebo was 71% in a 3-year study and 25% in a 2-year study. The prevented fraction for caries arrest for SDF was 725% greater in a 24-month study and 100% greater than placebo in a 30-month study. No severe adverse effects were observed.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluates the use of SDF for both root caries prevention and arrest in older adults. Existing reports of SDF trials support effectiveness in root caries prevention and arrest, remineralization of deep occlusal lesions and treatment of hypersensitive dentin.
The objectives of the study were to compare the effect of intensified oral care interventions given by dental or nursing personnel on mortality from healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP) in elderly adults in hospitals or nursing homes with the effect of usual oral care. Systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment database of the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (August 2015). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed independently and agreed on in consensus meetings. Five RCTs, with some or major study limitations, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Based on meta-analyses, oral care interventions given by dental personnel reduced mortality from HAP (risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.76, P = .003), whereas oral care interventions given by nursing personnel did not result in a statistically significant difference in mortality from HAP (RR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.97-1.48, P = .09), in elderly adults in hospitals or nursing homes from usual oral care. Oral care interventions given by dental personnel may reduce mortality from HAP (low certainty of evidence, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) ⊕⊕○○), whereas oral care interventions given by nursing personnel probably result in little or no difference from usual care (moderate certainty of evidence, GRADE ⊕⊕⊕○) in elderly adults in hospitals or nursing homes.
Background: Associations between nursing home residents' oral health status and quality of life, respiratory tract infections, and nutritional status have been reported. Educational interventions for nurses or residents, or both, focusing on knowledge and skills related to oral health management may have the potential to improve residents' oral health. Objectives: To assess the effects of oral health educational interventions for nursing home staff or residents, or both, to maintain or improve the oral health of nursing home residents. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 18 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 January 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 January 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 18 January 2016), and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 18 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 18 January 2016. In addition, we searched reference lists of identified articles and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing oral health educational programmes for nursing staff or residents, or both with usual care or any other oral healthcare intervention. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened articles retrieved from the searches for relevance, extracted data from included studies, assessed risk of bias for each included study, and evaluated the overall quality of the evidence. We retrieved data about the development and evaluation processes of complex interventions on the basis of the Criteria for Reporting the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions in healthcare: revised guideline (CReDECI 2). We contacted authors of relevant studies for additional information. Main results: We included nine RCTs involving 3253 nursing home residents in this review; seven of these trials used cluster randomisation. The mean resident age ranged from 78 to 86 years across studies, and most participants were women (more than 66% in all studies). The proportion of residents with dental protheses ranged from 62% to 87%, and the proportion of edentulous residents ranged from 32% to 90% across studies. Eight studies compared educational interventions with information and practical components versus (optimised) usual care, while the ninth study compared educational interventions with information only versus usual care. All interventions included educational sessions on oral health for nursing staff (five trials) or for both staff and residents (four trials), and used more than one active component. Follow-up of included studies ranged from three months to five years. No study showed overall low risk of bias. Four studies had a high risk of bias, and the other five studies were at unclear risk of bias. None of the trials assessed our predefined primary outcomes 'oral health' and 'oral health-related quality of life'. All trials assessed our third primary outcome, 'dental or denture plaque'. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between interventions and usual care for dental plaque (mean difference -0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.17; six trials; 437 participants; low quality evidence) or denture plaque (standardised mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.05; five trials; 816 participants; low quality evidence). None of the studies assessed adverse events of the intervention. Authors' conclusions: We found insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the effects of oral health educational interventions for nursing home staff and residents. We did not find evidence of meaningful effects of educational interventions on any measure of residents' oral health; however, the quality of the available evidence is low. More adequately powered and high-quality studies using relevant outcome measures are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and complications associated with using dental implants in patients with neurodegenerative diseases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Biosis Citation Index, CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS electronic databases were searched, with the last search performed on 20 May 2013. Reference lists of the included systematic reviews were manually reviewed. No restriction regarding the study design or publication language was applied for study inclusion. Only studies involving human subjects were included. In case randomised or other controlled trials were identified, methodological assessment of included studies was planned.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight potential papers were initially retrieved from the electronic databases. Eleven papers were finally included. No randomised controlled trial or other controlled trial was found. Eight papers were case reports and three were case series. The sample included three types of neurodegenerative diseases: dementia, Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. Generally, the reports showed improvements in chewing function and quality of life after the placement of implants and prostheses. Nevertheless, the follow-up time was typically short (≤12 months), and the overall sample size was small (N = 22 patients). Inclusion of studies without controls prevented a more robust methodological assessment from being performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the included reports suggest positive outcomes for dental implant use in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Nevertheless, more robust studies, with better design and longer follow-ups, are needed to set strategies to prevent and treat potential complications in patients with neurodegenerative disorders treated with dental implants.
A letter to the editor is presented which discusses a meta analysis exploring the association between tooth loss and increased risk of developing dementia among older people.
For people with physical, sensory and cognitive limitations due to stroke, the routine practice of oral health care (OHC) may become a challenge. Evidence-based supported oral care intervention is essential for this patient group.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the effectiveness of OHC interventions with usual care or other treatment options for ensuring oral health in people after a stroke.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group and Cochrane Oral Health Group trials registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases in February 2019. We scanned reference lists from relevant papers and contacted authors and researchers in the field. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted other researchers. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated one or more interventions designed to improve the cleanliness and health of the mouth, tongue and teeth in people with a stroke who received assisted OHC led by healthcare staff. We included trials with a mixed population provided we could extract the stroke-specific data. The primary outcomes were dental plaque or denture plaque. Secondary outcomes included presence of oral disease, presence of related infection and oral opportunistic pathogens related to OHC and pneumonia, stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes to OHC, and patient satisfaction and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles according to prespecified selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We sought clarification from investigators when required. Where suitable statistical data were available, we combined the selected outcome data in pooled meta-analyses. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS:
Fifteen RCTs (22 randomised comparisons) involving 3631 participants with data for 1546 people with stroke met the selection criteria. OHC interventions compared with usual care Seven trials (2865 participants, with data for 903 participants with stroke, 1028 healthcare providers, 94 informal carers) investigated OHC interventions compared with usual care. Multi-component OHC interventions showed no evidence of a difference in the mean score (DMS) of dental plaque one month after the intervention was delivered (DMS -0.66, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.09; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 83%; P = 0.08; very low-quality evidence). Stroke survivors had less plaque on their dentures when staff had access to the multi-component OHC intervention (DMS -1.31, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.66; 1 trial, 38 participants; P < 0.0001; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in gingivitis (DMS -0.60, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.45; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 93%; P = 0.26: very low-quality evidence) or denture-induced stomatitis (DMS -0.33, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.26; 1 trial, 38 participants; P = 0.69; low-quality evidence) among participants receiving the multi-component OHC protocol compared with usual care one month after the intervention. There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving a multi-component OHC intervention (99 participants; 5 incidents of pneumonia) compared with those receiving usual care (105 participants; 1 incident of pneumonia) (OR 4.17, CI 95% 0.82 to 21.11; 1 trial, 204 participants; P = 0.08; low-quality evidence). OHC training for stroke survivors and healthcare providers significantly improved their OHC knowledge at one month after training (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.35; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 94%; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). Pooled data one month after training also showed evidence of a difference between stroke survivor and providers' oral health attitudes (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 65%; P = 0.06; very low-quality evidence). OHC interventions compared with placebo Three trials (394 participants, with data for 271 participants with stroke) compared an OHC intervention with placebo. There were no data for primary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving an OHC intervention compared with placebo (OR 0.39, CI 95% 0.14 to 1.09; 2 trials, 242 participants; I2 = 42%; P = 0.07; low-quality evidence). However, decontamination gel reduced the incidence of pneumonia among the intervention group compared with placebo gel group (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.84; 1 trial, 203 participants; P = 0.028). There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants treated with povidone-iodine compared with a placebo (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.51; 1 trial, 39 participants; P = 0.77). One OHC intervention compared with another OHC intervention Twelve trials (372 participants with stroke) compared one OHC intervention with another OHC intervention. There was no difference in dental plaque scores between those participants that received an enhanced multi-component OHC intervention compared with conventional OHC interventions at three months (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.25; 1 trial, 61 participants; P = 0.78; low-quality evidence). There were no data for denture plaque.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that OHC interventions can improve the cleanliness of patient's dentures and stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes. There is limited low-quality evidence that selective decontamination gel may be more beneficial than placebo at reducing the incidence of pneumonia. Improvements in the cleanliness of a patient's own teeth was limited. We judged the quality of the evidence included within meta-analyses to be low or very low quality, and this limits our confidence in the results. We still lack high-quality evidence of the optimal approach to providing OHC to people after stroke.
