School Dental Screening Research Articles

Building School Nurses’ Capacity to Undertake School Dental Screening: A Pilot Project in Santa Rosa, California

Building School Nurses’ Capacity to Undertake School Dental Screening: A Pilot Project in Santa Rosa, California

How do different school dental screening programs compare for improving oral health?

How do different school dental screening programs compare for improving oral health?

The outcome of School dental screening on increasing utilization rates in dental offices of Lucknow city

Introduction: In various parts of the country, school dental screening has been regularly conducted as well as in many countries as a part of school health programme. The objective of the study was to assess that school dental screening improves utilization rates in dental clinics and increases acceptance of preventive care. Methodology: A total of 12 schools were randomly selected and divided into 2 groups, study group (n=1832) and control group(n=1899), 6 schools in each group. Utilization rates were determined within 3 months period from the start of screening program. Chi-square test was used to test the difference between groups. Results: The attendance rate for utilizing dental care in the study group was 55.54% and in the control group was 24.97%. Preventive care was seeked in 40.09% of the study group and in 49.80% of the control group. Conclusion: Screening programs significantly improved the follow up at dental clinics. Preventive care was seeked in both groups, after coming to the college, at the advice of a dentist.

School dental screening programmes for oral health.

In school dental screening, a dental health professional visually inspects children's oral cavities in a school setting and provides information for parents on their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school aims to identify potential problems before symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening for improving oral health status. It is the second update of a review originally published in December 2017 and first updated in August 2019. To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services. An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias. No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for school dental screening in improving dental attendance. We are uncertain whether traditional screening is better than no screening (very low-certainty evidence). Criteria-based screening may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening (low-certainty evidence). However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence). For children requiring treatment, personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific referral letters (very low-certainty evidence). Screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' is better than a standard referral letter (very low-certainty evidence) or whether specific referral to a dental treatment facility is better than a generic advice letter to visit the dentist (very low-certainty evidence). The trials included in this review evaluated effects of school dental screening in the short term. None of them evaluated its effectiveness for improving oral health or addressed possible adverse effects or costs.

Implementation and Effectiveness of School-Based Dental Screening

The majority of children and youth attend school, and timely detection of health and developmental difficulties through school-based dental screening offers a chance for prompt intervention, enabling kids to attain their full potential in terms of development and functional health. Delays in prompt intervention incur significant financial, social, and personal costs for the community, government, and healthcare infrastructure. School-based dental screening initiatives have the ability to get around many of the logistical challenges that vulnerable communities face when trying to get primary preventative dental care. Additionally, schools have the power to influence cultural norms surrounding healthy habits and connect families to care systems. To screen for dental illness and conditions, a visual dental examination of school aged children is used. Parents of children who test positive are notified and urged to send their child to a primary care facility for additional testing of their child's dental health condition and any required medical care. Consequently, screening has two goals: to recognize test-positive cases, and to guarantee that these are followed up on for the proper management. School-based dental screening is typically a component of school health services, and its model, procedure, and goals differ based on the national policies of each country's healthcare delivery system. Effectiveness research has shown that school dental screening has not been highly successful in the study groups at reducing untreated dental caries in either the primary or permanent dentition of young children. Additionally, population-level dental attendance has not been found to increase by screening. Limited number of positively-screening children have been observed to visit a dentist post screening. Among the small percentage of the positively-screening students who visit a dentist, only a fraction has been noted to go on to receive the necessary care in follow-ups.

Effectiveness of School Dental Screening to Reduce Untreated Caries: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of dental screening plus referral to a specific treating facility (intervention arm) against screening plus advice letter to see a dentist (traditional screening, and control arm) on changes in untreated caries among primary schoolchildren. A cluster-randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial was conducted in 16 public schools in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. Children aged 6–11 years without any compromising medical condition were eligible for inclusion. Children were examined for dental caries at baseline and 12 months later. Parents reported their socio-demographic characteristics and their child use of dental services at baseline and follow-up. Differences in the number of decayed primary and permanent teeth between trial arms were assessed using 3-level mixed-effects models to account for the clustering of children within schools and baseline demographic differences between arms. Data from 1,098 children (537 in the intervention and 561 in the control arm) were analysed. In the mixed-effect model, no differences in the increment of decayed primary and permanent teeth were found between the intervention and control arms (rate ratio: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.53–1.06). No differences between arms were found in the proportion of children visiting the dentist either (secondary outcome). The findings of this trial provided no support for the effect of post-screening referral to a specific dental hospital, compared to traditional screening, on changes in untreated dental caries among primary schoolchildren.

School dental screening programmes for oral health: Cochrane systematic review

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status and the use of dental services. This review is an update of the original review published in 2017. As you would expect of a Cochrane review, the methodology was of high quality.Study selection Inclusion criteria: randomised controlled trails (RCTs) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with another type of screening. The outcome of six of the trials presented dental attendance as the main outcome, while one trail (Nelson 2019) measured the main outcome as receipt of dental care. The studies had an average follow-up period of three to four months, with none reporting on the long term. A total of 3,093 records were identified in the initial search. Twenty-seven full-text copies were requested, and 17 reports and one ongoing study were excluded. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (reported in nine articles).Results The systematic review included seven trials (four from the UK, two from India and one from the USA) involving 20,192 children aged 4-15 years. Based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool, two trials were determined to be at low risk of bias, two trials were high risk of bias and three trials were assessed to be at unclear risk of bias. Due to the inconsistency in evidence, the review was unable to draw conclusions between traditional screening versus no screening. The comparison between criteria-based screening versus no screening was evaluated, showing a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), which suggested a possible benefit for screening. Criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08), with no evidence of a difference in effectiveness. No trials reported on the potential adverse effects of school dental screening programmes.Conclusion The systematic review found there was very low certainty of evidence to support the role of school screening programmes in improving dental attendance. There was a low certainty of evidence to conclude that criteria-based screening, personalised referral letters or screening supplemented with motivation improve dental attendance.

How do different school dental screening programs compare for improving oral health?

How do different school dental screening programs compare for improving oral health?

School dental screening programmes for oral health.

School dental screening programmes for oral health.

A resource reallocation model for school dental screening: taking advantage of teledentistry in low-risk areas

To estimate the scale of resource transfer that could be achieved by screening low-risk schoolchildren using teledentistry rather than using traditional visual dental examination. This study was based on a previous cost-minimisation study that compared the costs of two dental-screening approaches (visual and teledentistry). The data for the population of children 5-14 years of age was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and was divided across Australia according to statistical local area (SA2). The cost models (for teledentistry and visual screening) for each SA2 relative to the state, Remoteness Area (RA) and Socio-Economic Index for Area (SEIFA) indexes were estimated. The geographical information system was used to superimpose modelled cost data on the geographical map to provide a visual presentation of the data. Resource transfer scenarios, based on risk minimisation, were then developed and analysed. This study demonstrated a suboptimal allocation of dental-care resources, such that children living in high socio-economic areas (major cities) with low disease burdens consuming half of the estimated resources of a universal visual dental screening system. The findings suggest that utilising teledentistry screening for low-risk children has the potential to free up $40 million per annum. Such resources can be reallocated to increase care access and improve the quality of dental services for vulnerable children. To reduce inequalities in dental health within a community, scarce health-care resources should be targeted at the population at most risk. These findings can be used to inform policymakers, guide the appropriate distribution of scarce resources and target dental services to benefit high-need children.

Effectiveness of school dental screening on dental visits and untreated caries among primary schoolchildren: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundDental caries is one of the most common diseases affecting children in Saudi Arabia despite the availability of free dental services. School-based dental screening could be a potential intervention that impacts uptake of dental services, and subsequently, dental caries’ levels. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of two alternative approaches for school-based dental screening in promoting dental attendance and reducing untreated dental caries among primary schoolchildren.MethodsThis is a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing referral of screened-positive children to a specific treatment facility (King Saud University Dental College) against conventional referral (information letter advising parents to take their child to a dentist). A thousand and ten children in 16 schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, will be recruited for the trial. Schools (clusters) will be randomly selected and allocated to either group. Clinical assessment for dental caries will be conducted at baseline and after 12 months by dentists using the World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria. Data on sociodemographic, behavioural factors and children’s dental visits will be collected through structured questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. The primary outcome is the change in number of teeth with untreated dental caries 12 months after referral. Secondary outcomes are the changes in the proportions of children having untreated caries and of those who visited the dentist over the trial period.DiscussionThis project should provide high level of evidence on the clinical benefits of school dental screening. The findings should potentially inform policies related to the continuation/implementation of school-based dental screening in Saudi Arabia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03345680. Registered on 17 November 2017.

Insufficient evidence for the role of school dental screening in improving oral health.

Data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (cluster or parallel) evaluating school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, with data being pooled where appropriate. The GRADE approach was used to interpret findings.ResultsSix trials involving 19,498 children were included. Two were considered to be at low risk of bias, three at unclear risk and one at high risk. No conclusions could be made from four studies comparing traditional screening versus no screening because the evidence was inconsistent. Two trials evaluating criteria-based screening versus no screening suggested a possible benefit; RR = 1.07 (95% CI; 0.99-1.16). No difference was found when comparing criteria-based screening with traditional screening, RR = 1.01, (95% CI; 0.94-1.08). No trials reported on long-term follow-up or cost-effectiveness and adverse events.ConclusionsThe trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.

School dental screening programmes for oral health.

School dental screening refers to visual inspection of children's oral cavity in a school setting followed by making parents aware of their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school intends to identify children at an earlier stage than symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status. To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events. The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.

No evidence to support or refute the benefits of school dental screening

Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, Web of Science ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of school-based dental screening versus no screening for oral health, conducted on children aged three to 18 years were considered. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data with study quality being assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Narrative and quantitative syntheses of included studies' findings were performed. Risk ratios were calculated for binary outcomes, and standardised mean differences were planned for continuous outcomes. Five cluster RCTs involving 28,442 children were included, with the type of screening intervention varying across the studies. Follow-up periods varied from two to four months. Four studies measured dental attendance and one measured changes in prevalence and mean number of deciduous and permanent teeth with active caries as its primary outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in dental attendance between children who received dental screening and those who did not. The studies were considered to be at high or unclear risk of bias. There is currently no evidence to support or refute the clinical benefits or harms of dental screening. Routine dental screening does not have an effect on dental attendance of school children, but there is a lot of uncertainty in this finding because of the quality of evidence. Given the potential benefits and costs of screening, there is a need to conduct an RCT with low risk of bias, adequate sample size and follow-up to identify differences in clinical outcomes.

Cost savings from a teledentistry model for school dental screening: an Australian health system perspective.

Objective The aim of the present study was to compare the costs of teledentistry and traditional dental screening approaches in Australian school children. Methods A cost-minimisation analysis was performed from the perspective of the oral health system, comparing the cost of dental screening in school children using a traditional visual examination approach with the cost of mid-level dental practitioners (MLDPs), such as dental therapists, screening the same cohort of children remotely using teledentistry. A model was developed to simulate the costs (over a 12-month period) of the two models of dental screening for all school children (2.7million children) aged 5-14 years across all Australian states and territories. The fixed costs and the variable costs, including staff salary, travel and accommodation costs, and cost of supply were calculated. All costs are given in Australian dollars. Results The total estimated cost of the teledentistry model was $50million. The fixed cost of teledentistry was $1million and that of staff salaries (tele-assistants, charters and their supervisors, as well as information technology support was estimated to be $49million. The estimated staff salary saved with the teledentistry model was $56million, and the estimated travel allowance and supply expenses avoided were $16million and $14million respectively; an annual reduction of $85million in total. Conclusions The present study shows that the teledentistry model of dental screening can minimise costs. The estimated savings were due primarily to the low salaries of dental therapists and the avoidance of travel and accommodation costs. Such savings could be redistributed to improve infrastructure and oral health services in rural or other underserved areas. What is known about the topic? Caries is a preventable disease, which, if it remains untreated, can cause significant morbidity requiring costly treatment. Regular dental screening and oral health education have the great potential to improve oral health and save significant resources. The use of role substitution, such as using MLDPs to provide oral care has been well acknowledged worldwide because of their ability to provide safe and effective care. The teledentistry approach for dental screening offers a comparable diagnostic performance to the traditional visual approach. What does this paper add? The results of the present study suggest that teledentistry is a practical and economically viable approach for mass dental screening not only for isolated communities, but also for underserved urban communities. The costs of the teledentistry model were substantially lower than the costs associated with a conventional, face-to-face approach to dental screening in both remote and urban areas. The primary driver of net savings is the low salary of MLDPs and avoidance of travel and overnight accommodation by MLDPs. What are the implications for practitioners? The use of lower-cost MLDPs and a teledentistry model for dental screening has the potential to save significant economic and human resources that can be redirected to improve infrastructure and oral care services in underserved regions. In the absence of evidence of the economic usefulness of teledentistry, studies such as the present one can increase the acceptance of this technology among dental care providers and guide future decisions on whether or not to implement teledentistry services.

Effectiveness of School Oral Health Screening and Factors Affecting Dental Attendance Among Female Primary School Children in Saudi Arabia

Objectives: School dental screening and referral is a dental public health measure that helps children with oral health problems to come in contact with dental services. Recent studies have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of school screening programs in stimulating dental attendance. The objective of the present study is to assess the effectiveness of school oral health screening in stimulating dental attendance and factors affecting dental attendance among female primary school children in Saudi Arabia. Methodology: A multistage cluster random sampling method was used in which the unit of randomization was the school. All children were given comprehensive oral health education followed by oral screening. Oral health referrals to visit dental clinic were given to children needing any dental treatment. The parents were contacted by telephone two months after oral health referral and information on child’s dental attendance and reasons for failing to attend dental clinics was collected according to predetermined set of questions and the data was subjected to statistical analysis. Results: A total of 1,035 female school children aged 6 to 12 years received oral health education at school followed by dental screening. Only 211 (23.8%) children attended dental clinics after receiving oral health referrals. The most important reason for not attending the dental clinic was difficulty for working parents to take time off (41.2%) followed by logistic problems (20.4%) and some parents thought dental treatment was not important since there was no pain (9.7%). The least perceived barriers were cost of dental treatment (3.6%), difficulty in taking leave from school (3%), and school exams (3%). Conclusions: School oral health screening and referrals have been found to be ineffective at stimulating dental attendance. Parental factors like ‘lack of time’ and ‘logistic problems’ for taking their child to the dentist were found to be major factors affecting dental attendance. Methods to improve parent’s awareness regarding oral health of children and alternative choices to ensure adequate dental care to vulnerable children needs to be explored.

School dental screening programmes for oral health

School dental screening programmes for oral health

The prevalence of dental anomalies in an Australian population.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of dental anomalies within an Australian paediatric population using panoramic radiographs. This was a prospective review of 1050 panoramic radiographs obtained as part of a school dental screening program in suburban and rural New South Wales, Australia. Fifty-four (5.14%) patients had a dental anomaly present. Agenesis was noted to have occurred 69 times across 45 patients (4.28%), along with seven cases of impaction (0.6%) and three cases of supernumerary teeth (0.28%). Dental anomalies rarely occur in the Australian population, which possesses a wide-ranging multiethnic cohort. Despite their rarity, they can be incidentally discovered so identification and management by dental practitioners are important.

Effectiveness of school dental screening on stimulating dental attendance rates in Vikarabad town: A randomized controlled trial

Background: The school dental screening program has been in existence from the beginning of 20 th century. Its value in encouraging attendance among school children is not fully established. Aim: The aim was to determine the effectiveness of school dental screening on stimulating dental attendance rates among school children in Vikarabad town. Objectives: (a) To compare the dental attendance rates between 6-9 and 10-13 years old age groups, among male and female school children in Vikarabad town. (b) To identify the type of dental treatment received by the school children. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted among school children aged 6-13 years old from 16 schools that were randomly selected and divided into two groups. Eight schools had a dental screening program (study group = 300 children) and had blanket referral cards and 8 schools that did not have the intervention (control group = 300). The dental attendance rates were determined after 3 months of follow-up period by evaluating the blanket referral cards for the study group and by an oral questionnaire for the control group. Results: The dental attendance rate was 27% for the study group and 18% for the control group which is statistically significant. The attendance rate was higher among 10-13 years of children both in test group and control groups. Among the children who visited the dentist, 53% in the control group and 69% from the test group got simple amalgam and glass ionomer cement restorations. Conclusion: The dental attendance rates were improved following school dental screening.

Is School Dental Screening a Political or a Scientific Intervention?

SUMMARY School dental screening has enjoyed considerable political support in the UK, and in many countries throughout the world, school dental screening is seen as a key dental public health intervention. The evidence from the UK and elsewhere is that while the concept of dental screening is attractive to policymakers, there is no scientific evidence that it leads to improvements in health, either for individual children or for the child population.It is quite possible that school dental screening may be effective in other settings within other countries, and there is now available a simple methodology for the evaluation of such schemes.If the screening of schoolchildren is to be successful, then policymakers need to be clear that this activity cannot be regarded as a ‘planning comfort blanket’, and that there needs to be a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of any screening program.The scientific community has a key role to play. The evidence base for school dental screening is weak, and more country-specific research is required. Our understanding of the role of dental screening is now well-developed, and with this comes the opportunity for those countries with dental screening programs to evaluate them scientifically.Once the data become available, there is an expectation that science will begin, at last, to inform policy in this area of dental public health.