Summary: Prevention of Craniofacial Injuries Health education and injury prevention campaigns addressing the need for pro- tective gear in sports and cycling activ- ities can increase awareness and use. More rapid adoption can occur through legislation or regulation. Greater dis- semination of safety measures for home and workplace can similarly lower the risk of falls and other unintentional injuries. With regard to reducing inten- tional injuries in the United States, cur- rent and ongoing policy discussions, legislative proposals, and research efforts are necessary first steps toward appropriate programs. ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES To take full advantage of emerging sci- ence-based health and health care prac- tices, individuals, health care providers, and policymakers need to be sufficient- ly informed that they can take appro- priate actions for themselves, for those for whom they have responsibility, and for the community at large. For the individual, these actions include brush- ing with a fluoride-containing denti- frice for caries prevention, brushing and flossing to prevent gingivitis and periodontal diseases, and avoiding tobacco and other substances that are detrimental to health. Lack of knowledge can affect care. If parents are not familiar with the importance and care of their child's pri- mary teeth or if they do not know that dental sealants exist, they are unlikely to take appropriate action or seek pro- fessional services. If the public is not aware of the benefits of community water fluoridation, public referenda and funding for such interventions are not likely to be supported. Similarly, if individuals do not know that an oral cancer examination exists, they may not ask about the need for one. However, it is well established that Cotnmutnt)~ and Other ;\pproachcs to Promote Oral Health ;ind Prc\.cnt Oral Disease BOX 7.2 Sports Injuries and Oral-Facial Trauma The national concern regarding oral-facial injury is addressed in the Healthy People 2010 objective 15-31, which is to increase the proportion of public and private schools that require use ofappropriate head,face,eye,and mouth protection for students participating in school- sponsored physical activitiesThe National Youth Sports Safety Foundation estimates that more than 3 million teeth will be knocked out in youth sporting activities this year,an injury almost completely preventable by wearing a mouthguard. Even more significant, oral-facial trauma from sports injuries will result in facial bone fractures,concussion, permanent brain injury, temporomandibular dysfunction, blinding eye injuries, and even death. Currently, no systematic monitoring for oral-facial injuries exists in the United States. Progress toward a more broadly targeted Healthy People 2000 objective proved to be diffi- cult to track because of the data requirements of monitoringall organizations,agencies,and institutions sponsoring sporting and recreational events that pose risk of injury. By focusing on schools,not only should the monitoring of progress be feasible, but healthy habits will be formed early.The hope is that by the time the athletes reach young adulthood they will rec- ognize the hazards posed by their athletic interests and, perhaps, be more comfortable using protective devices than they would be without them. It is estimated that as many as one third of all dental injuries are sports-related. A particu- larly high proportion of all baseball injuries (41 percent) is estimated to occur to the head, face, mouth, or eyes. Nowjack-Raymer and Gift (1996) reported that in 1991 more than 14 million U.S.school-aged youngsters participated in at least one sport that was listed on the 1991 National Health Interview Survey questionnaire, with more than 9 million of these children in organized baseball or softball. Baseball and softball are the most popular organized sports, with nearly one quarter of the school-aged population playing. Unlike football, not all baseball/softball leagues or teams require the use of safety equipment. In many cases, only selected positions such as catchers and batters are covered by rules.Thus only 35 percent of players reported that they wore headgear all or most of the time, and only 7 percent wore mouthguards all or most of the time. Further analysis of the interview data revealed a variety of socioenvironmental differences in the wearing of headgear and mouthguards. Forty percent of males who played baseball or softball reported wearing protective headgear"all or most of the time,"compared with only 25 percent of females. Differences were also found by poverty level, with 36 percent of those at or above poverty level wearing headgeaccompared with 24 percent ofthose below. Better educated parents were somewhat more likely than less educated parents to have responded that their child wore headgear"sometimes" (45 percent versus 38 percent) and non-Hispanics reported occasional use more than Hispanics (43 percent versus 30 percent). Parents of a greater percentage of baseball or softball players of high school age (12 percent) than elementary school-aged players (6 percent) reported that their child wore a mouth- guard"all or most ofthe time."Also,more black (17 percent) than white (6 percent) children reported the use of mouthguards. These socioeconomic differences might be greater were it not for the safety efforts of school athletic programs.Still, many parents and coaches are not as proactive as they could be and are not aware that facial injuries also occur in sports that are not considered high contact. For example, basketball players typically do not wear mouthguards.Yet approximately 34 percent of all injuries to basketball players involve teeth and/or the oral cavity. Examples of community-based interventions to prevent sports-related, oral-facial trauma include the development of rules and regulations for the use of headgear and mouthguards in sports where craniofacial injury is a risk; efforts to alert players, parents, sports officials, and organizers to the potential for injury; better product design; and the creation of sup- portive environments for sports-related equipment and recreation areas. 176 ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL I;no\vledge alone will not necessarily lead to appro- prlate practices. For example, even if individuals know that tobacco use is unhealthful and that it con- tributes to multiple life-threatening illnesses, some continue to smoke. The majority of people who need such information most- those in low-income groups ,& those with lower levels of education-also are the ones who lack the information and skills (oral health literacy) to ask for and obtain specific preven- tive semices or treatment options. Health profession- als are in an ideal position to provide up-to-date health information and care to their patients. They also have an opportunity to enhance their knowledge and practices as well as increase their communica- tion to patients about the procedures they provide and the reasons for these procedures. Few national studies of public and professional knowledge, attitudes, and practices exist. Highlights from these as well as from state and local studies that evaluated the prevention of dental caries, periodontal diseases, and oral cancers are provided below. Generally, the public is unable to discriminate between methods that prevent dental caries and those that prevent periodontal diseases (Corbin et al. 1985. Gift et al. 1994). This confusion has been attributed to the prevailing marketing message that refers to them as "plaque diseases" preventable by thorough tooth cleaning with a toothbrush and floss. In addition, the general public and health care providers are not fully informed about the relative value of fluoride and the appropriate recommended applications of regimens to prevent dental caries (Corbin et al. 1985, Gallup 1992, Gift et al. 1994, O'Neil 1984). More work is needed to improve knowledge and practices related to oral cancer pre- vention as well. As with other areas of investigation, additional survey research is needed to better understand findings to date and to develop tailored interventions. Research is ongoing to improve the design of survey instruments and the wording of questions to address cultural and ethnic differences and interpretations. Dental Caries Prevention The Public Most members of the general public, regardless of socioeconomic level, tend to believe that the best way to prevent dental caries is by brushing their teeth (Corbin 1985, Gift et al. 1994, O'Neil 1984). In the I990 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), respondents were asked the purpose of adding fluoride to public drinking water. About two thirds of the respondents 25 to 65 years of age knew that water fluoridation helps prevent caries, compared with only 51 percent and 49 percent of those 65 and older and 18 to 24 years of age, respectively. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to know the value of this preventive procedure than whites. In the same sur- vey, when asked to indicate the one best way to pre- vent tooth decay from five answers (limiting sugary snacks, using fluorides, chewing sugarless gum, brushing and flossing the teeth, and visiting the den- tist every 6 months), only 7 percent of the respon- dents answered correctly that fluoride was the most effective (Gift et al. 1994). More than two thirds said tooth brushing and flossing were the most effective. These results paralleled those of earlier studies (Gift et al. 1994, O'Neil 1984). A lower perceived value of fluorides by the public in preventing dental caries also was seen in the 1985 NHIS (Corbin et al. 1985). In a survey of knowledge and beliefs of the public, dentists, and dental researchers about the best way to prevent dental caries, the public and the dentists identified tooth brushing, whereas dental researchers unanimously ranked fluorides, as most important (O'Neil 1984). A small study among Latina mothers showed that they believed that brushing with baking soda is a good way to prevent dental caries; they knew little about brushing with a fluoride-containing dentifrice (Watson et al. 1999). Dental sealants and appropriate use of fluoride are critical for caries prevention. In the 1990 NHIS, about 32 percent of the public had heard of dental sealants, but among those only three fourths knew the purpose of this preventive measure (Gift et al. 1994). In 1991 the Gallup Organization conducted a poll for the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry among a national sample of 1,200 parents of children 16 years and younger. The results indicated that only 58 percent believed fluoride to be very important to a child's oral health; another 36 percent considered it to be somewhat important. Eight of 10 parents did not know when a child should be prescribed fluoride supplements, and virtually no one knew when sup- plements should be stopped. Only 25 percent of par- ents in nonfluoridated communities reportedly give their children fluoride supplements (Gallup 1992). Health Care Providers In a national survey of U.S. dental hygienists' knowl- edge, opinions, and practices regarding dental caries etiology and prevention, over 90 percent agreed that "adults benefit from the use of fluorides" and that "root surface caries is an emerging problem." A little Community and Other ,hpproaches to Promote Oral Health and Prevent Oral Disease ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 177 less than one third did not provide fluoride treat- ments to adults. This same survey found that only 57 percent of the respondents recognized remineraliza- tion as fluoride's most important mechanism of action; rather, flossing was selected as the most effec- tive procedure for preventing caries in adults. Also, only 18 percent reported providing the recommend- ed time for acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) gel treatment (Forrest 1998). A city-based suney of den- tists and dental hygienists found that nearly 70 per- cent of the offices used lower than recommended topical fluoride application times and that some of the fluoride products reportedly used had not been clinically tested (Warren et al. 1996). Periodontal Disease Prevention The Public In the 1990 NHIS the majority of household respon- dents (79 percent) could identify one common sign of "gum" disease. Level of education was directly related to knowledge of gum disease. Eighty-nine percent of those with more than a high school level of education were able to name a common sign of gum disease, compared with 79 percent of those with a high school education and 60 percent of those with less than a high school education (Gift et al. 1994). A Roper report on oral health surveyed more than 1,000 adults 18 and older, Eighty percent reported that they did not believe they `have had peri- odontal disease. However, 70 percent reported hav- ing experienced at least one symptom of gum dis- ease-bleeding gums; swollen, painful, or receding gums; a change in bite; or loose teeth. Although 41 percent of the respondents said that losing their teeth was their greatest fear regarding oral health, only 38 percent who had bleeding gums said they told their dentists about the problem. Further, only 30 percent of the respondents who had experienced warning signs of gum disease were worried about developing periodontal problems in the future. Fifty-eight per- cent knew that plaque is the main cause of gum dis- ease and that flossing alone will not prevent gum dis- ease, whereas 77 percent knew that brushing alone would not prevent gum disease. The majority (90 percent) knew that gum disease could strike anyone at any age (Roper Report 1994). In a recently reported study on the oral hygiene practices of a convenience sample of 34,897 users and nonusers of tobacco products who obtained den- tal care in 75 dental practices, 74 percent reported brushing twice a day and 36 percent reported flossing once daily (Andrews 1998). Tobacco users brushed and flossed much less frequently than nonusers. Patients with more than a high school education were less likely to use tobacco products and more likely to brush at least 2 times a day and floss daily than were those with less education. A 1996 study of 1,000 U.S. adults showed that nearly one third (29 percent) of respondents were extremely or very concerned about getting gum dis- ease. Concern was highest among younger respon- dents 18 to 49 years of age and those who very or somewhat frequently experienced bleeding gums. Only 6 percent said they frequently suffered from bleeding gums (2 percent very frequently and 4 per- cent somewhat frequently). Only 13 percent said a dental professional had diagnosed them with any kind of periodontal disease (gingivitis, pyorrhea, and periodontitis). Older respondents were somewhat more likely than younger ones to have been diag- nosed with gum disease, and 17 percent reported experiencing gingival bleeding occasionally (Andrews 1998). Health Care Providers Studies of dental professionals regarding periodontal disease prevention practices are limited. In 1989, Dental Products Report launched a study to deter- mine the involvement of general practitioners in periodontal care. Overall, general dentists and their hygienists have become more involved in the peri- odontal exam phase of patient treatment. This posi- tive trend suggests that periodontal diagnosis and treatment are well integrated into general practice. For example, when asked "what phases of periodon- tal treatment are you providing at present?" 100 per- cent reported gingival exam and evaluation, 97 per- cent reported pocket probing, and 88 percent report- ed providing patient education. The majority of den- tists (67 percent) used as many as six measurement sites per tooth. Nearly all (93 percent) reported hav- ing a referral relationship with a periodontist (Dental Products Report 1996). Oral Cancer Prevention and Early Detection The Public U.S. adults generally are ill-informed regarding risk factors for and signs and symptoms of oral cancers. Further, a 1990 national survey found that only 14 percent of adults 40 and older reported that they had ever had an oral cancer examination. Of those, only 7 percent had had an exam within the last year 178 ORAL HWLTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL jiaro~v;t;: et al. 1995). In a statewide survey in ,t,tn.jand. 85 percent of the adults claimed to have (,t,lrd of oral or mouth cancer, but only 28 percent reported ever having an oral cancer examination fjnrovvttz et al. 1996). A state-based study of veter- .,t,++~ population at high risk for oral cancers- l,,ur-td that they were ill-informed and misinformed .tbout these cancers (Canto et al. 1998a). Finally, a ,tudv among Latin0 youths who reported use of t(,b&o and alcohol found that they, too, were not knoivfedgeable regarding risk factors for oral cancers , C,tnto et al. 1998b). lltalth Care Providers .-J, recent national pilot survey of U.S. dentists found that the respondents' knowledge regarding risk fac- tors for and signs and symptoms of oral cancers and their reported practice of examination procedures \vcre limited (Yellowitz et al. 19.98). Most respon- dents believ,ed they were adequately trained to pro- VI& oral cancer examinations, and 70 percent pro- b.ided annual oral cancer exams to patients 40 and older. Seventy-four percent reported their knowledge of oral cancers to be current, yet only 30 percent cor- rcctly identified the age cohort most frequently diag- nosed with oral cancers. Further, less than 50 percent correctly identified the stage at which most oral can- cer lesions are diagnosed, and nearly one third of respondents could not identify the two most com- mon sites of these lesions. Although 86 percent claimed to assess their patients' current tobacco use, only 50 percent assessed current alcohol use; rela- tively few dentists assessed past alcohol or tobacco use. There was a modest amount of misinformation as well. For example, 65 percent believed, incorrect- ly% that ill-fitting dentures and partials were a risk fac- tor for oral cancers, and 47 percent believed, also incorrectly, that poor oral hygiene was a risk factor. Further, although the majority of dentists claimed to provide oral cancer examinations to the majority of their patients, a large proportion did not palpate the lymph nodes-part of a comprehensive oral cancer examination. These results confirm an earlier study conducted among a convenience sample of Maryland dentists and physicians in that both groups believed their knowledge and skills related to oral cancer pre- vention and early detection to be wanting (Yellowitz and Goodman 1995). A recent national survey among U.S. dental hygienists found that although 98 percent agreed that oral cancer examinations should be provided annual- ly for adults 40 and older, only 64 percent reported performing such an exam 100 percent of the time, and nearly 17 percent reported not performing an exam at any time (Forrest 1998). Further inconsis- tencies were found between knowledge of risk factors and performance. For example, although 94 percent correctly identified alcohol use as a risk factor for oral cancer, only 49 percent asked about alcohol use. Less than a majority (45 percent) reported their knowledge of oral cancers to be current. A majority (61 percent) believed they were adequately trained to palpate lymph nodes; still, only 24 percent reported routine palpating of lymph nodes, while 51 percent indicated they did not do so at any time. Summary Findings from national surveys, together with those from local studies, suggest that there are opportuni- ties for enhanced educational efforts for both the public and health professionals to improve oral health. These studies focus on the public and the dental profession for selected diseases. New research is needed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and prac- tices of all health professionals and for other condi- tions and risk factors related to oral health as well. BUILDING UPON SUCCESS As research and technology advance our understand- ing of the causes of major craniofacial diseases and disorders and lead to improved methods of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, opportunities for new community-based prevention programs will grow. Ultimately, the application of any preventive inter- vention is driven by a combination of individual behaviors, community interventions, and profession- al practice, Only a few studies have taken into account all three spheres of action in determining health outcomes in a community (Arnljot et al. 1985, Chen et al. 1997). Our knowledge of the effects of multiple interventions is limited because most inter- ventions were developed and tested singly In the past half century, however, advances in our understanding of oral diseases and the applica- tion of multiple preventive measures have resulted in continuing declines in the prevalence and severity of both dental caries and periodontal diseases for a size- able majority of Americans. For dental caries, for example, experts now believe that most people can maintain a low risk of the disease by a combination of drinking fluoridated water and brushing daily with a fluoride dentifrice. They recommend that addition- al provider- and community-based dental prevention programs be targeted to high-risk individuals and groups. ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 179 Community and Other Xpproaches to Promote Oral Health and Prc\~ent Oral Discasc Many of the studies reviewed in this chapter were conducted when higher rates of caries pre- vailed, community water fluoridation was less wide- spread, and use of fluoride dentifrices and supple- ments was not as common as today. These facts must be taken into consideration in contemporary deci- sion making by public health professionals and poli- cymakers. The validity and reliability of recommen- dations will benefit from the systematic reviews of the scientific evidence by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2000) to be includ- ed in a Guide to Community Preventive Services. Oral health promotion strategies are among those current- ly being evaluated. reach those at high risk for disease. Similarly, focus- ing community-based interventions on populations at greatest risk will make optimal use of available resources. However, continued research to under- stand risk and improve ways to measure it is equally important for the success of these ventures. A review of progress in reaching the Healthy People 2000 oral health objectives reveals relatively little gain across many of the objectives (Table 7.8). Progress in the next decade will require diligent efforts to identify public health problems, mobilize resources, and ensure that the necessary conditions are in place and crucial services received. Public health agencies will be instrumental in carrying out these functions, and state and local dental directors can perform a leadership role. Box 7.3 describes the public health services that are essential if a commu- nity is to realize fully the benefits of available disease Future innovations include implementing pro- grams in new settings, such as workplaces, senior centers, and nursing homes, where individuals at high risk can be reached. Even if these programs are more expensive, the yield may be worth it if they prevention and health promotion interventions TABLE 7.8 Progress in meeting Healthy People 2000 oral health objectives 13.1 Reduce dental caries in children Reduce dental caries in adolescents 13.2 Reduce untreated dental decay in children Reduce untreated dental decay in adolescents 13.3 Increase adults who have never lost a permanent tooth 13.4 Reduce adults who have lost all their teeth 13.5 Reduce gingivitis among adults 13.6 Reduce destructive periodontal disease 13.7 Reduce oral and pharyngeal deaths in males Reduce oral and pharyngeal deaths in females 13.8 Increase sealants in children Increase sealants in adolescents 13.9 Increase persons on public water receiving fluoridated water 13.10 Increase topical/systemic fluorides among nonfluoridated 13.11 Increase caregivers using feeding practices that prevent early childhood caries 13.12 Increase oral health screening, referral, follow-up, first time school attendee 13.13 For long-term care,oral exam and services provided within 90 days 13.14 Increase use of oral health care system (adults) 13.15 Increase states with system for recording and referring orofacial clefts 13.16 Extend use of protective head, face, eye, and mouth equipment 13.17 Reduce smokeless tobacco use among males Source: Adapted from NCHS 1999. Age 6-8 15 b-a 15 35-44 65+ 35-44 35-44 45-74 45-74 8 14 35+ 12-17 18-24 Baseline Data HP 2000 Goal Final Data Summary 54% 35% 52% Prog 78% 60% 61% Prog +++ 28% 20% 29% Reversed 24% 15% 20% Prog ++ 31% 45% 31% No Change 36% 20% 30% Prog ++ 41% 30% 48% Reversed 25% 15% 22% Prog + .13.6% 10.5% 10.3% Met 4.8% 4.1% 3.5% Met 11% 50% 23% Prog ++ 8% 50% 24% Prog ++ 61% 75% 62% Prog 50% 85% No data No data 55% 75% No data No data 66% 90% 75% Prog ++ No data 100% No data No data 54% 70% 63% Prog ++ 11 states 40 states 23 states Prog ++ No data No data No data No data 6.6% 4% 3.7% Met 8.9% 4% 6.9% Prog ++ 180 ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL - c i,mm~lnit\ .~nd 0thcr ,\pproaches to Promote Oral Health and Prevent Oral Disease Box 7.3 Essential Public Health Services for Oral Health The Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors'Guidelines fur stare and Territorial Orul Health Programs (ASTDD 1997) identi- fies the following essential public health services to improve oral health: I. Assessment Assess oral health sratus and needs so that problems can be identified and addressed. Analyze determinunts of identified oral health needs, including resources. Assess the fluoridation status of water systems, and other sources of fluoride. Implement an oral he& surveillance system to identify, investigate,and monitor oral health problems and health hazards. II. Policy Development Developplans undpolicies through a collaborative process that support individual and community oral health efforts to address oral health needs. Provide leadership to address oral health problems by maintaining a strong oral health unit within the health agency. Mobilize community partnerships between and among policymakers, professionals, organizations, groups, the public, and others to identify and implement solutions to oral health problems. Ill. Assurance A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Inform, educate, and empower the public regarding oral health problems and solutions. Promote and enforce lutvs and regulufions that protect and improve oral health, ensure safety, and assure accountability for the public's well-being. Linkpeople to needed population-based oral health serv- ices, personal oral health services, and support services and assure the availability, access, and acceptability of these services by enhancing system capacity, including directly supporting or providing services when necessary. Support services and implementation of programs that focus on primury und secondmy prevention. Assure rhat the public health und personul heoltb workforce has the capacity and expertise to effectively address oral health needs. Evaluate effectiveness, uccessibikty, und quulity of popula- tion-based and personal oral health services. Conduct reseurch ond support demonsfrution projects to gain new insights and applications of innovative solutions to oral health problems. FINDINGS o Community water fluoridation, an effective, safe, and ideal public health measure, benefits indi- viduals of all ages and socioeconomic strata. Unfortunately, over one third of the U.S. population (100 million persons) are without this critical public health measure. 0 Effective disease prevention measures exist for use by individuals, practitioners, and communi- ties. Most of these focus on dental caries prevention, such as fluorides and dental sealants, where a combi- nation of services is required to achieve optimal dis- ease prevention. Daily oral hygiene practices such as brushing and flossing can prevent gingivitis. 0 Community-based approaches for the pre- vention of other oral diseases and conditions, such as oral and pharyngeal cancers and oral-facial trauma, require intensified developmental efforts. o Community-based preventive programs are unavailable to substantial portions of the under- served population. o There is a gap between research findings and the oral disease prevention and health promotion practices and knowledge of the public and the health professions. o Disease prevention and health promotion approaches, such as tobacco control, appropriate use of fluorides for caries prevention, and folate supple- mentation for neural tube defect prevention, high- light opportunities for partnerships between commu- nity-based programs and practitioners, as well as col- laborations among health professionals. o Many community-based programs require a combined effort among social service, health care, and education services at the local or state level. REFERENCES Acton CH, Thomas 5, Nixon JW, Clark R, Pitt WR, Battistutta D. Children and bicycles: what is really happening? Studies of fatal and non-fatal bicycle injury Inj Prev 1995 Jun;l:86-91. Adair SM. The role of fluoride mouthrinses in the con- trol of dental caries: a brief review. Pediatr Dent 1998 Mar-Apr;20(2):101-14. Adriaens ML, Dermaut LR, Verbeeck RM. The use of `fluor protector', a fluoride varnish, as a caries pre- vention method under orthodontic molar bands. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:316-9. American Academy of Periodontology (AAP). Proceedings of the 1996 World Workshop in Periodontics. Ann Periodontol 1996:1(1):223-55. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and American Dental Association (ADA). Report of the Joint Commission on Mouth Protectors. 1960. ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICI: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 181 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). National Facial Protection Month. Available from: http://www.aaoms.org/fac promonth.htm. [accessed 2000 Apr 6). American Dental Association (ADA). Caries diagnosis and risk assessment. A review of preventive strate- gies and management. J Am Dent Assoc 1995 Jun:l26(Suppl):lS-SS. American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations and Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 1997 Apr;128(4):485-8. American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Dental Materials and Devices. Pit and fissure sealants. J Am Dent Assoc 1976 Jul;93(1):134. Andrews JA. Severson HH, Lichtenstein E, Gordon JS. Relationship between tobacco use and self-reported oral hygiene habits. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:313- 20. Arnljot H, et al., editors. Oral health care systems: an international collaborative study coordinated by the World Health Organization. London: Quintessence; 1985. Arnold FA Jr, Likins RC, Russell AL, Scott DB. Fifteenth year of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study. J Am Dent Assoc 1962;65:780-5. Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD), the New York State Health Department, the Ohio Department of Health and the School of Public Health, University of Albany, State University of New York. Workshop on guidelines for sealant use: recommendations. J Public Health Dent 1995;55(5 Spec No):263-73. Association of State and Territorial dental Directors (ASTDD). Guidelines for state and territorial oral health programs. 1997 Jul. Ast DB, Fitzgerald B. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc 1962;65:581-7. Bachulis BL, Sangster W, Gorrell G\V, Long WB. Patterns of injury in helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcyclists. Am J Surg 1988 May;155(5):708-11. Bader JD, Sams DH, O'Neil EH. Estimates of the effects of a statewide sealant initiative on dentists' knowl- edge and attitudes. J Public Health Dent 1987 Fa11;47(4): 186-92. Bader JD. Rozier RG, McFall WT, Sams DH, Graves RC, Slome BA, Ramsey DL. Evaluating and influencing periodontal diagnostic and treatment behaviors in general practice. J Am Dent Assoc 1990 Dec:121(6):720-4. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Ginsburg MJ, Guohua L, editors. The injury fact book. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992. p. 211-2. Bawden JW, Granath L, Holst K, Koch G, Krasse P, Rootzen H. Effect of mouthrinsing with a sodium fluoride solution in children with different caries experience. Swed Dent J 1980;4(3): 11 l-7. Bednarsh H. Connolly GN. A report on fluoride mouthrinsing programs among states. Presented at the 112th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association; 1984; Anaheim, CA. Birkland JM, Tore11 F! Caries-preventive fluoride mouthrinses. Caries Res 1978;12(Suppl):38-51. Blacksin ME Patterns of fracture after air bag deploy- ment. J Trauma 1993 Dec;35(6):840-3. Blayney JR, Hill IN. Fluorine and dental caries. J Am Dent Assoc 1967:74(S1):233-302. Bohannan HM, Stamm JW, Graves R, Disney JA, Bader JD. Fluoride mouthrinse programs in fluoridated communities. J Am Dent Assoc 1985 Nov;lll(5): 783-9. Bratthall D. Hansel Petersson G, Sundberg H. Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? EurJ Oral Sci 1996;104:416-22. Bravo M, Llodra JC, Baca P, Osorio E. Effectiveness of visible light fissure sealant (Delton) versus fluoride varnish (Duraphat): 24-month clinical trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996 Feb;24(1):42-6. Brown LF, Spencer AJ. Special report-continuing edu- cation in periodontology-the Adelaide study. Periodontol 1989;10:12-13. Burt BA, editor. Proceedings for the workshop: cost- effectiveness of caries prevention in dental public health. J Public Health Dent 1989;49(51)352:251- 352. Burt BA, Eklund SA. Dentistry, dental practice, and the community, 5th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1999. Calderone JJ, Davis JM. The New Mexico sealant pro- gram: a progress report. J Public Health Dent 1987 Summer;47(3):145-9. Calderone JJ, Mueller LA. The cost of sealant applica- tion in a state dental disease prevention program. J Public Health Dent 1983 Summer;43(3):249-54. Callanen VA, Weintraub JA, French DF', Connolly GN. Developing a sealant program: the Massachusetts approach. J Public Health Dent 1986 Summer;46(3):141-6. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979 Nov 3;121(9):1193-254. Canto MT, Horowitz AM, Goodman HS, Watson MR, Cohen LA, Fedele DJ. Maryland veterans' knowl- edge of risk factors for and signs of oral cancers and their use of dental services. Gerodontology 1998a;l5(2):79-86. Canto MT, Kawaguchi Y, Horowitz AM. Coverage and quality of oral cancer information in the popular press: 1987-98. J Public Health Dent 199810 Summer;58(3):241-7. Cathcart JE Mouth protectors for contact sports. Dent Digest 1982;57:348. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Bicycle-related injuries: data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1987 May;36(17):269-71. :82 oRAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL c c`,,tcrs for Disease Control (CDC). Guidelines for 5choo1 health programs to prevent tobacco use and .tddiction. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1994a Fcb `75:$3(RR-2):1-18. c inters for Disease Control (CDC). Preventing tobacco use among young people: a report of the Surgeon General. Executive summary. MMWR Morb Mortal \\.kfy Rep 1994b Mar ll;(RR-4):1-10. ccrrtcrs for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Examinations for oral cancer-United States, 1992. \lXlIVR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1994c;43: 198-200. c ctrtcrs for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Engineering and administrative recommendations for water fluoridation, 1995. MMWR Morb Mortal \\`kl,s Rep 1995 Sep 29;44(RR-13):1-40. c-ctrters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preventing and controlling oral and pharyngeal can- ccr. Recommendations from a National Strategic Planning Conference. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998 Aug 28;47(RR-14):1-12. c`entcrs for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental cartes. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999;48:933- y-to. <:cntcrs for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Rtcommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (in press). 45 Dentition Event Predictor Primary Eruption primary molars Mutans dmfs, especially streptococci primary incisors Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli Mixed Eruption first permanent molar dmfs, especially primary molars First molar occlusal morphology DMFS Eruption second permanent molar DMFS,especially first permanent molars First molar occlusal morphology Incipient smooth surface lesions Early Mature permanent permanent Progression of gingival recession Incipient Not studied Coronal and root smooth DMFS surface lesions Number of teeth DMFS Periodontal disease Note: dmfs = decayed, missing, or filled primary tooth surfaces; DMFS = decayed, missing, or filled permanent tooth surfaces. Source: Powell 1998.Caries prediction:a review of the literature.CommunityDenristryondOralFpidemio/ogy 1998;26:361-71,Copyright 1998 by Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd., Copenhagen, Denmark.Reprinted by permission of Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd.,Copenhagen, Denmark (ZOOO). 198 ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL FIGURE 8.4 Caries risk questions for initial examination INITIAL VISIT-QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER is there current caries activity? Are there indications that yield potential for development of caries within the next year? . Prior DMFS (decayed, missing, or filled surfaces) . Tooth morphology . Medications that decrease saliva flow and/or affect viscosity of saliva . Medical condition or treatment(s) What is the individual's caries risk? - tow . Moderate . High What are the modifiable risk factors that may be responsible for or may contribute to this caries activity? . Insufficient systemic and topical fluoride . Medications . Poor oral hygiene habits or skills . Deep pits and fissures without sealants . Poor dietary habits What can be done to prevent new caries or caries progression within the next year? . Sealants . Increase fluoride use * Oral hygiene instruction/education . Dietary counseling * Monitor bacterial count + Antimicrobial agents . Conservative restorative techniques-to minimize removal of, tooth structure What is the prognosis for successful intervention? * Patient compliance . Clinician skill (diagnosis, intervention counseling) * Prevention modalities are accepted/applied * Severity at onset Are there other considerations that may affect the decision process that cannot be changed? (effect modifiers, confounders) * Age * Socioeconomic considerations . Medically and/or physically compromising conditions Source: American Dental Association Council on Access, Prevention and Inter- professional Relations 199S.Caries diagnosis and risk assessment.A review of preventive strategies and management.JADA; 126: 15.245,Copyright 1995 by American Dental Association. Reprinted by permission of ADA Publishing Co. Inc. (2ooO). fluoride-containing prophylactic pastes are available for professional application (see Chapter 7). Clinical judgment of risk factors determines the type and frequency of interventions needed. Although there is general agreement on the over- all value of topical fluorides in reducing dental caries (ADA 1986. 1994, Moss 1976, Stookey et al. 1993), Personal and Provider Approaches to Oral Health comparative clinical trials are needed to determine which of the existing fluoride formulations (acidulat- ed phosphate fluoride, stannous fluoride, amino- fluoride, or sodium fluoride) and which delivery sys- tem (gel, varnish, dentifrice, or solution) are most efficacious. A second line of defense is through control of the etiologic agent. Chemotherapeutic agents (including the antimicrobial mouthrinse agent chlorhexidine and fluoride) can be used to reduce plaque. Dietary measures aimed at reducing the frequency and quan- tity of sugars and the substitution of sugars by sugar- free sweeteners may effectively starve the bacteria. The process of tooth demineralization and re- mineralization has received significant attention over the past four decades (Geiger et al. 1992, Koulourides et al. 1961, Larsen and Fejerskov 1987, Linton 1996, Silverstone et al. 1981, White 1988), although the concept was documented in the early 1900s (Head 1912) (see Chapter 3). Investigators are studying the effectiveness of therapeutic agents for arresting carious lesions and remineralizing enamel in populations at high risk for dental caries. For example, a combined chlorhexidine-fluoride solution can enhance remineralization of incipient lesions and arrest caries in patients who suffer from radiation- induced caries (Katz 1982). The use of a twice-daily rinse with 0.05 percent sodium fluoride to prevent demineralization and induce remineralization in sub- jects with radiation-induced hyposalivation has also been found to be effective (Meyerowitz et al. 1991). This study also addressed the effects of chlorhexidine use alone, which has been associated with tooth staining, alterations in taste, and potential hypersen- sitivity reactions (Ohtoshi et al. 1986, Okano et al. 1989). Schaeken et al. (1991) showed that the appli- cation of 40 percent by weight chlorhexidine varnish every 3 months enhanced remineralization of root caries more than fluoride varnish, although both treatments were associated with fewer filled root sur- faces than the control group after 1 year. A chlorhex- idine varnish has not yet been approved in the United States, and large-scale, double-blind, placebo-con- trolled clinical trials are not yet available to test the effects of specific regimens in relation to caries risk. Studies also are evaluating interventions to pre- vent mutans streptococci transmission. Find- ings from cross-sectional studies indicate that infants are initially infected by their parents, specifically mothers, around the time the teeth erupt (Berkowitz et al. 1975, Caufield et al. 1993, Kohler and Bratthall 1978). A longitudinal study using DNA fingerprint- ing demonstrated that mothers were the source of the ORAL HEALTH IN AMERIC.%: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 199 Personal and Provider Approaches to Oral Health rABLE 8.5 Caries risk classification guidelines Risk Category Age Category for Recall Patient9 Child/Adolescent Adult Low No carious lesions in last year Coalesced or sealed pits and fissures Good oral hygiene Appropriate fluoride use Regular dental visits No carious lesions in last 3 years Adequately restored surfaces Good oral hygiene Regular dental visits Moderate One carious lesion in last year Deep pits and fissures Fair oral hygiene Inadequate fluoride White spots and/or interproximal radiolucencies Irregular dental visits Orthodontic treatment One carious lesion in last 3 years Exposed roots Fair oral hygiene White spots and/or interproximal radiolucencies Irregular dental visits Orthodontic treatment High >2 carious lesions in last year Past smooth surface caries Elevated mutans streptococci count Deep pits and fissures No/little systemic and topical fluoride exposure Poor oral hygiene Frequent sugar intake Irregular dental visits Inadequate saliva flow Inappropriate bottle feeding or nursing (infants) 22 carious lesions in last 3 years Past root caries; or large number of exposed roots Elevated mutans streptococci count Deep pits and fissures Poor oral hygiene frequent sugar intake Inadequate use of topical fluoride Irregular dental visits Inadequate saliva flow a At initial visit for new patient, if time of lasr caries experience cannot be determined,a person with no decayed missinV, or filled surfaces (DMFS = o) would be classified as low risk. A person with past caries experience (DMFS > 0) and/or one active lesion would be classified as moderate risk, A person with past caries experience and/or rWo active Caries or one smooth surface lesion would be classified as high risk. Parents of young children and expectant parents need additional tounseling on inappropriate nursing or bottle feeding practices that can lead to the development of early childhood caries. Parents and caregivers should be advised to introduce children to a cop in an effort to discontinue use of the bottle by the age of 1 year. Also, parents and caregivers should be advised never to place anything other than plain water in a naptime or nighttime bottle.Children should not be allowed to bottle feed at will and should be weaned from the bottle by the age of 1 year. Many medically compromised individuals are likely to be assessed in the higher risk categories because of their use of certain medications and possible xemstomia. Source: Amencan Dental Association Council on Access and Interprofessional Relations 1995.Caries diagnosis and risk assessment. A review of preventive strategies and management.lADA 1995; 126: 15-245. Copyright 1995 by American Dental Association. Reprinted by permission of ADA Publishing Co. Inc.WIW. TABLE 8.6 Sensitivity and specificity of selected dental caries diagnostic procedures Sensitivity Specificity (percentage) (percentage) References Visual examination of noncavitated fissures 12-31 70-99 Lussi 1993,Ketley and Holt 1993 Examination using explorer Id-24 70-99 Penning et aL1992,Lussi 1993 Radiographs of approximal lesions so-90 as+ Grbndahl 1989,Benn and Watson 1989 bacteria in their infants and the degree of matching to maternal strains was higher for female infants than for males (Li and Caufield 1995). Based on a study of child-mother pairs (with the child initially at 1 year of age), the application of a 1.0 percent chlor- hexidine rinse alternated with a 0.2 percent sodium fluoride gel to the mother's teeth (3 times per day on 2 consecutive days, twice per year for 3 years) delayed, and in some cases prevented, the colo- nization of their children's teeth by mutans streptococci (Tenovuo et al. 1992). Timing of colonization has been shown to be correlated with caries prevalence. In a longi- tudinal study that followed chil- dren in $-month intervals from 15 months to 4 years of age, children who were infected earlier had a higher caries prevalence than those in whom the infection was detected at later ages. Studies also have been aimed at reducing the levels of cariogenic bacteria in the infants themselves. Work continues on the devel- opment of a caries vaccine. One approach focuses on the produc- tion and release of antibodies against cariogenic bacteria anti- gens (Russell et al. 1995). Specific antigens have been purified and synthesized. Another approach involves biological replacement therapy, where nonpathogenic bacteria, instilled in the mouth, prevent pathogenic bacteria from colonizing (Hillman et al. 2000). Yet another approach employs pas- sive immunization in which anti- bodies, produced outside the body (in cultures, animals, eggs, or plants), are applied to the teeth and oral tissues to protect against disease. A recent study indicated that "plantibodies" painted on the teeth could prevent mutans strep- tococci colonization for 120 days, the period of the experiment (Ma et al. 1998). 200 ORAL HEALTH IN AMERICA: A REPORT OF THE SURGEON GENERAL