Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Jan;24(1):1–174. doi: 10.3310/hta24010

Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT.

Anne Maguire, Jan E Clarkson, Gail Va Douglas, Vicky Ryan, Tara Homer, Zoe Marshman, Elaine McColl, Nina Wilson, Luke Vale, Mark Robertson, Alaa Abouhajar, Richard D Holmes, Ruth Freeman, Barbara Chadwick, Christopher Deery, Ferranti Wong, Nicola Pt Innes
PMCID: PMC6983909  PMID: 31928611

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Historically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit.

SETTING

This trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were NHS patients aged 3-7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis.

INTERVENTIONS

Three interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm, n = 386; biological arm, n = 381; prevention alone arm, n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm, n = 352; biological arm, n = 352; prevention alone arm, n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8-36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was -0.02 (97.5% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval -0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period.

FUTURE WORK

Recommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Tooth decay is common; it can lead to pain, days off school for children and days off work for parents and is a financial burden to the NHS. There is uncertainty about the best way of managing decay in young children. This trial aimed to find out whether or not there was a difference in the amount of pain and/or infection suffered by children having their decay treated with one of the following: fillings, having decay sealed in or using preventative treatment alone. Which method represented the best value was also explored.

WHAT DID WE DO?

For young children with decay, the Filling Children’s Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) trial compared the difference between fillings, sealing in the decay and using preventative treatment alone over 3 years in NHS dental practices in Scotland, England and Wales. We recruited 1144 children aged 3–7 years with one or more holes in their baby back teeth (molars), but without pain/infection, and placed them at random into one of three groups: (1) tooth numbing, removing decay and filling(s) with preventative treatment; (2) sealing in decay with fillings or caps and preventative treatment but no numbing; or (3) preventative treatment alone.

WHAT DID WE FIND?

Recruitment was challenging but was achieved. There was no evidence of a difference in children’s experience of pain or infection, quality of life or dental anxiety between groups. All three ways of treating decay were acceptable to children, parents and dental professionals. Sealing in with preventative treatment was most likely to be considered the best way of managing children’s decay if we are willing to pay a minimum of £130 to avoid an episode of pain or infection.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

As there was no evidence of a difference between the three treatment groups in pain/infection experienced, treatment choice should continue to be based on shared decision-making between the child, parent and clinician to agree the best option for the individual child.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Royal College of Surgeons, Faculty of Dental Surgery. The State of Children’s Oral Health in England. London: Royal College of Surgeons; 2015.
  2. Public Health Wales. Child Dental General Anaesthetics in Wales. Cardiff: Public Health Wales; 2014.
  3. Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland. Dental Statistics: NHS Registration and Participation. Edinburgh: ISD Scotland; 2014.
  4. Vernazza CR, Rolland SL, Chadwick B, Pitts N. Caries experience, the caries burden and associated factors in children in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2013. Br Dent J 2016;221:315–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.682 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. NHS England. Improving Dental Care and Oral Health: A Call to Action. Leeds: NHS England; 2014.
  6. Tickle M, Milsom K, King D, Kearney-Mitchell P, Blinkhorn A. The fate of the carious primary teeth of children who regularly attend the general dental service. Br Dent J 2002;192:219–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801338 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801338. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Levine RS, Pitts NB, Nugent ZJ. The fate of 1,587 unrestored carious deciduous teeth: a retrospective general dental practice based study from northern England. Br Dent J 2002;193:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801495a doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801495a. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res 2015;94:650–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515573272 doi: 10.1177/0022034515573272. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Petersen PE. Oral Health. In Quah SR, Heggenhougen K, editors. International Encyclopedia of Public Health. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008. pp. 677–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00527-X doi: 10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00527-X. [DOI]
  10. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Expert Consultation on Public Health Intervention Against Early Childhood Caries. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  11. Marmot M. Status syndrome. Significance 2004;1:150–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00058.x doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00058.x. [DOI]
  12. Broadbent JM, Zeng J, Foster Page LA, Baker SR, Ramrakha S, Thomson WM. Oral health-related beliefs, behaviors, and outcomes through the life course. J Dent Res 2016;95:808–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516634663 doi: 10.1177/0022034516634663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Public Health England. National Dental Epidemiology Programme for England: Oral Health Survey of Five-Year-Old Children 2015: A Report on the Prevalence and Severity of Dental Decay. London: Public Health England; 2016.
  14. Hall-Scullin E, Whitehead H, Milsom K, Tickle M, Su TL, Walsh T. Longitudinal study of caries development from childhood to adolescence. J Dent Res 2017;96:762–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517696457 doi: 10.1177/0022034517696457. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Pine CM, Adair PM, Nicoll AD, Burnside G, Petersen PE, Beighton D, et al. International comparisons of health inequalities in childhood dental caries. Community Dent Health 2004;21(Suppl. 1):121–30. [PubMed]
  16. Pitts NB, Chadwick B, Anderson T. Children’s Dental Health Survey 2013. Report 2: Dental Disease and Damage in Children England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2015.
  17. Marsh PD. Contemporary perspective on plaque control. Br Dent J 2012;212:601–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.524 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.524. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Fejerskov O, Nyvad B. Pathology of Dental Caries. In Fejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidd EAM, editors. Dental Caries: The Disease and Its Clinical Management. 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
  19. Kidd E, Fejerskov O. Changing concepts in cariology: forty years on. Dent Update 2013;40:277–8, 280–2, 285–6. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2013.40.4.277 doi: 10.12968/denu.2013.40.4.277. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, Leal SC, Gordan VV, Eden E. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries: a review – report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J 2012;62:223–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12007 doi: 10.1111/idj.12007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Elderton RJ. Clinical studies concerning re-restoration of teeth. Adv Dent Res 1990;4:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374900040010701 doi: 10.1177/08959374900040010701. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Fayle SA, Welbury RR, Roberts JF, British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD). British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on management of caries in the primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001;11:153–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-263x.2001.011002153.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.2001.011002153.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA, British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18(Suppl. 1):20–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00935.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00935.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Chadwick B, Treasure E, Dummer P, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, et al. Challenges with studies investigating longevity of dental restorations: a critique of a systematic review. J Dent 2001;29:155–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00003-3 doi: 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00003-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Prevention and Management of Dental Caries in Children: Dental Clinical Guidance. 2nd edn. Dundee: Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme; 2018.
  26. Macpherson LMD, Ball G, Carson S, Ireland J, McStravick M, Conway DI, et al. Report of the 2015 Detailed National Dental Inspection Programme of Primary 7 Children and the Basic Inspection of Primary 1 and Primary 7 Children. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland; 2015.
  27. Davies G, Neville J, Rooney E, Robinson P, Jones A, Perkins C. National Dental Epidemiology Programme for England: Oral health Survey of Five-Year-Old-Children 2012. London: Public Health England; 2012.
  28. Threlfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioners’ views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J 2005;199:453–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4812746 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4812746. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NPT, Kidd E, Clarkson JE. Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:CD003808. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Innes NPT, Ricketts D, Chong LY, Keightley AJ, Lamont T, Santamaria RM. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;12:CD005512. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Clarkson JE, Foley JI. Obtaining an evidence-base for clinical dentistry through clinical trials. Prim Dent Care 2005;12:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1308/1355761054348459 doi: 10.1308/1355761054348459. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Innes NP, Schwendicke F, Lamont T. How do we create, and improve, the evidence base? Br Dent J 2016;220:651–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.451. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Levey C, Innes N, Schwendicke F, Lamont T, Göstemeyer G. Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions: a systematic review. Trials 2017;18:515. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2256-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2256-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health 2007;7:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-7-18 doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-7-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Innes N, Evans D. The Hall Technique: A Minimal Intervention, Child Centred Approach to Managing the Carious Primary Molar. A Users Manual. 4th edn. Dundee: University of Dundee; 2015.
  36. Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. Sealing caries in primary molars: randomized control trial, 5-year results. J Dent Res 2011;90:1405–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511422064 doi: 10.1177/0022034511422064. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Santamaría RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, Schmoeckel J, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Alternative caries management options for primary molars: 2.5-year outcomes of a randomised clinical trial. Caries Res 2018;51:605–14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477855 doi: 10.1159/000477855. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Kidd EA. How ‘clean’ must a cavity be before restoration? Caries Res 2004;38:305–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077770 doi: 10.1159/000077770. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Frencken JE. Atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention dentistry. Br Dent J 2017;223:183–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.664 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.664. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations: evidence from an update of a systematic review. SADJ 2012;67:329–31. [PubMed]
  41. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Banerjee A. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:233–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0335-8 doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0335-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Dorri M, Martinez-Zapata MJ, Walsh T, Marinho VC, Sheiham Deceased A, Zaror C. Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;12:CD008072. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008072.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008072.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. de Menezes Abreu DM, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Self-report of pain in children treated according to the atraumatic restorative treatment and the conventional restorative treatment: a pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;34:151–5. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.34.2.9k67p786l7126263 doi: 10.17796/jcpd.34.2.9k67p786l7126263. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Wong DL, Baker CM. Smiling face as anchor for pain intensity scales. Pain 2001;89:295–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00375-4 doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00375-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Innes NP, Manton DJ. Minimum intervention children’s dentistry: the starting point for a lifetime of oral health. Br Dent J 2017;223:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.671 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.671. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Hansen NV, Nyvad B. Non-operative control of cavitated approximal caries lesions in primary molars: a prospective evaluation of cases. J Oral Rehabil 2017;44:537–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12508 doi: 10.1111/joor.12508. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Page LA, Boyd DH, Davidson SE, McKay SK, Thomson WM, Innes NP. Acceptability of the Hall Technique to parents and children. N Z Dent J 2014;110:12–17. [PubMed]
  48. Ludwig KH, Fontana M, Vinson LA, Platt JA, Dean JA. The success of stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall Technique: a retrospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1248–53. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.89 doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.89. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Narbutaite J, Innes NPT, Santamaria RM, Splieth CH, Machiulskiene V. One-year outcomes of dental caries management using different approaches in primary molars of Lithuanian children. Caries Res 2017;51:290–385.
  50. Araujo MP, Olegario IC, Hesse D, Innes NP, Bonifacio CC, Raggio DP. ART versus Hall Technique in primary molars: 1-year survival cost and analysis of a RCT. Caries Res 2017;51:290–385.
  51. Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJ, Splieth CH. Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results. J Dent Res 2014;93:1062–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514550717 doi: 10.1177/0022034514550717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Santos AP, Moreira IK, Scarpelli AC, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Martins CC. Survival of adhesive restorations for primary molars: a systematic review and metaanalysis of clinical trials. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:370–8. [PubMed]
  53. Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, Gillette J, Nový B, Dhar V, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:120–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Dorri M, Dunne SM, Walsh T, Schwendicke F. Micro-invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;11:CD010431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010431.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010431.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Fontana M, Platt JA, Eckert GJ, González-Cabezas C, Yoder K, Zero DT, et al. Monitoring of sound and carious surfaces under sealants over 44 months. J Dent Res 2014;93:1070–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514551753 doi: 10.1177/0022034514551753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Tellez M, Gomez J, Kaur S, Pretty IA, Ellwood R, Ismail AI. Non-surgical management methods of noncavitated carious lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41:79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12028 doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L, Estrich C, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:282–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Hesse D, Bonifácio CC, Mendes FM, Braga MM, Imparato JC, Raggio DP. Sealing versus partial caries removal in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-58 doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;3:CD002284. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002284 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002284. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Worthington H, Mäkelä M. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;3:CD001830. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Harris R, Gamboa A, Dailey Y, Ashcroft A. One-to-one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD006540. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006540.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006540.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Shepherd MA, Nadanovsky P, Sheiham A. The prevalence and impact of dental pain in 8-year-old school children in Harrow, England. Br Dent J 1999;187:38–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800197 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800197. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Jackson SL, Vann WF, Kotch JB, Pahel BT, Lee JY. Impact of poor oral health on children’s school attendance and performance. Am J Public Health 2011;101:1900–6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.200915 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.200915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on early childhood caries (ECC): classifications, consequences, and preventive strategies. Pediatr Dent 2014;37:15–16. [PubMed]
  65. Blumenshine SL, Vann WF, Gizlice Z, Lee JY. Children’s school performance: impact of general and oral health. J Public Health Dent 2008;68:82–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00062.x doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00062.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Gilchrist F, Marshman Z, Deery C, Rodd HD. The impact of dental caries on children and young people: what they have to say? Int J Paediatr Dent 2015;25:327–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12186 doi: 10.1111/ipd.12186. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. National Institute of Health Consensus Development Panel. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Diagnosis and management of dental caries throughout life. Bethesda, MD, 26–28 March 2001. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;65:935–1179. [PubMed]
  68. Pitts NB, Stamm JW. International Consensus Workshop on Caries Clinical Trials (ICW-CCT): final consensus statements – agreeing where the evidence leads. J Dent Res 2004;83:C125–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408301s27 doi: 10.1177/154405910408301s27. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Pretty IA. Caries detection and diagnosis: novel technologies. J Dent 2006;34:727–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Horner K, Eaton KA, Faculty of the Royal College of Surgeons, General Dental Practitioners. Selection Criteria for Dental Radiography. 3rd edn. London: Faculty of General Dental Practice; 2013.
  71. Heasman PA, Macpherson LE, Haining SA, Breckons M. Clinical research in primary dental care. Br Dent J 2015;219:159–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.645 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.645. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Marshman Z, Innes N, Deery C, Hall M, Speed C, Douglas G, et al. The management of dental caries in primary teeth: involving service providers and users in the design of a trial. Trials 2012;13:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-143 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Stewart M, Keightley A, Maguire A, Chadwick B, Vale L, Homer T, et al. Investigating the management of carious primary teeth in general dental practice: an overview of the development and conduct of the fiction trial. Prim Dent J 2015;4:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1308/205016815816682146 doi: 10.1308/205016815816682146. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Locker D, Allen F. What do measures of ‘oral health-related quality of life’ measure? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:401–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00418.x doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00418.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Pantell RH, Lewis CC. Measuring the impact of medical care on children. J Chronic Dis 1987;40(Suppl. 1):99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9681(87)80039-5 doi: 10.1016/S0021-9681(87)80039-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Klinberg G. Dental anxiety and behaviour management problems in paediatric dentistry: a review of background factors and diagnostics. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2008;9(Suppl. 1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262650 doi: 10.1007/BF03262650. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Nuttall NM, Gilbert A, Morris J. Children’s dental anxiety in the United Kingdom in 2003. J Dent 2008;36:857–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Tsakos G, Hill K, Chadwick B, Anderson T. Children’s Dental Health Survey 2013: Report 1 Attitudes, Behaviours and Children’s Dental Health England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2015.
  79. Townend E, Dimigen G, Fung D. A clinical study of child dental anxiety. Behav Res Ther 2000;38:31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00205-8 doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00205-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Klaassen MA, Veerkamp JS, Hoogstraten J. Changes in children’s dental fear: a longitudinal study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2008;9(Suppl. 1):29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262653 doi: 10.1007/BF03262653. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Freeman R. A fearful child attends: a psychoanalytic explanation of children’s responses to dental treatment. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2007;17:407–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00871.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00871.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. NHS Digital. NHS Dental Statistics. England, 2013/14. 2014. URL: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publicationimport/pub14xxx/pub14738/nhs-dent-stat-eng-13-14-rep.pdf (accessed 5 September 2019).
  83. Schwendicke F, Doméjean S, Ricketts D, Peters M. Managing caries: the need to close the gap between the evidence base and current practice. Br Dent J 2015;219:433–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.842 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.842. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Keightley A, Clarkson J, Maguire A, Speed C, Innes N. Participant recruitment to FiCTION, a primary dental care trial: survey of facilitators and barriers. Br Dent J 2014;217:E22. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.1009 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.1009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Innes NPT, Clarkson JE, Speed C, Douglas GVA, Maguire A. The FiCTION dental trial protocol: filling children’s teeth – indicated or not? BMC Oral Health 2013;13:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-13-25 doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-13-25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. National Institute for Health Research. NETSCC, HTA: 9th May 2011. FiCTION Feasibility Study. Southampton: NIHR; 2011.
  87. Public Health England. Delivering Better Oral Health: An Evidence-Based Toolkit for Prevention. 3rd edn. London: Public Health England; 2014.
  88. Innes NP, Clarkson JE, Douglas GVA, Ryan V, Wilson N, Homer T, et al. Child caries management: a randomized controlled trial in dental practice. J Dent Res 2020;99:36–43. doi: 10.1177/0022034519888882. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Ismail AI. Visual and visuo-tactile detection of dental caries. J Dent Res 2004;83:C56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408301s12 doi: 10.1177/154405910408301s12. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) Coordinating Committee. Rationale and Evidence for the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II). Leeds: University of Leeds; 2011.
  91. Shoaib L, Deery C, Ricketts DN, Nugent ZJ. Validity and reproducibility of ICDAS II in primary teeth. Caries Res 2009;43:442–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000258551 doi: 10.1159/000258551. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Braun A, Guiraud LM, Frankenberger R. Histological validation of ICDAS II and radiological assessment of occlusal carious lesions in permanent teeth. Odontology 2017;105:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0245-6 doi: 10.1007/s10266-016-0245-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Jokovic A, Locker D, Stephens M, Kenny D, Tompson B, Guyatt G. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire for measuring child oral-health-related quality of life. J Dent Res 2002;81:459–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910208100705 doi: 10.1177/154405910208100705. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Marshman Z, Rodd H, Stem M, Mitchell C, Robinson PG. Evaluation of the Parental Perceptions Questionnaire, a component of the COHQoL, for use in the UK. Community Dent Health 2007;24:198–204. [PubMed]
  95. Thomson WM, Foster Page LA, Gaynor WN, Malden PE. Short-form versions of the Parental-Caregivers Perceptions Questionnaire and the Family Impact Scale. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41:441–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12036 doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Thomson WM, Foster Page LA, Malden PE, Gaynor WN, Nordin N. Comparison of the ECOHIS and short-form P-CPQ and FIS scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-36 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  97. Atchison KA, Gift HC. Perceived oral health in a diverse sample. Adv Dent Res 1997;11:272–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959374970110021001 doi: 10.1177/08959374970110021001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:309–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999 doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Porritt J, Buchanan H, Hall M, Gilchrist F, Marshman Z. Assessing children’s dental anxiety: a systematic review of current measures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41:130–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00740.x doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00740.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Oral Health Assessment and Review Guidance in Brief. Dundee: Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme; 2011.
  101. Humphris GM, Wong HM, Lee GTR. Preliminary validation and reliability of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Psychol Rep 1998;83:1179–86. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3f.1179 doi: 10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3f.1179. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Christophorou S, Lee GTR, Humphris GH. The reliability and validity of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale: a study of Greek-Cypriot school children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2000;1:75–81.
  103. Howard KE, Freeman R. Reliability and validity of a faces version of the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17:281–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00830.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2007.00830.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Nelson S, Slusar MB, Albert JM, Liu Y, Riedy CA. Psychometric properties of a caregiver illness perception measure for caries in children under 6 years old. J Psychosom Res 2016;81:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  105. Porritt J, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Understanding children’s dental anxiety and psychological approaches to its reduction. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012;22:397–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01208.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01208.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Patel H, Reid C, Wilson K, Girdler NM. Inter-rater agreement between children’s self-reported and parents’ proxy-reported dental anxiety. Br Dent J 2015;218:E6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.98 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.98. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Krikken JB, van Wijk AJ, ten Cate JM, Veerkamp JS. Measuring dental fear using the CFSS-DS: do children and parents agree? Int J Paediatr Dent 2013;23:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01228.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01228.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Ersig AL, Kleiber C, McCarthy AM, Hanrahan K. Validation of a clinically useful measure of children’s state anxiety before medical procedures. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2013;18:311–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jspn.12042 doi: 10.1111/jspn.12042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  109. Marshman Z, Hall MJ. Oral health research with children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18:235–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00922.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00922.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Francis D, Roberts I, Elbourne DR, Shakur H, Knight RC, Garcia J, et al. Marketing and clinical trials: a case study. Trials 2007;8:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-37 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Payne R, Abel G. UK indices of multiple deprivation: a way to make comparisons across constituent countries easier. Health Stat Q 2012;53:1–16.
  112. Abel GA, Barclay ME, Payne RA. Adjusted indices of multiple deprivation to enable comparisons within and between constituent countries of the UK including an illustration using mortality rates. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012750. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012750 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  113. Shilling V, Williamson P, Hickey H, Sowden E, Beresford M, Smyth R, et al. Communication about children’s clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners. PLOS One 2011;6:e21604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021604 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. O’Mullane DM, Baez RJ, Jones S, Lennon MA, Petersen PE, Rugg-Gunn AJ, et al. Fluoride and oral health. Community Dent Health 2016;33:69–99. [PubMed]
  115. Morgan M, Monaghan N. Picture of Oral Health 2017: Dental Caries in 5 Year Olds (2015/2016). Cardiff: Cardiff University; 2017.
  116. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Dental Interventions to Prevent Caries in Children. Edinburgh: Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2014.
  117. Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance. London: Department for Transport; 2015.
  118. Dental Sky. Dental Supplies UK. 2018. URL: www.dentalsky.com (accessed 21 May 2018).
  119. NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA). NHS Payments to Dentists: Data for 2016 to 17. 2017. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/fp17-processing-and-payments/nhs-payments-dentists-201617 (accessed 16 October 2017).
  120. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2018.
  121. NHS Health Education England. Agenda for Change: Pay Rates. 2018. URL: www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/working-health/working-nhs/nhs-pay-and-benefits/agenda-change-pay-rates (accessed 21 May 2018).
  122. Stolls N. Now and then: NHS dentistry – pre- and post-2006. Br Dent J 2016;220:283. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.214 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.214. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Scottish Dental. Statement of Dental Remuneration Amendment No. 135. 2017. URL: www.scottishdental.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Amendment-No.-135-SDR.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).
  124. Watson M. What is a UDA? Vital 2010;7:13. https://doi.org/10.1038/vital1131 doi: 10.1038/vital1131. [DOI]
  125. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Time Series: Average Actual Weekly Hours of Work for Full-Time Workers (Seasonally Adjusted). London: ONS; 2017. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/ybuy/lms (accessed 8 December 2017).
  126. Lloyds Pharmacy. Online Pharmacy, Prescriptions, Chemist and Health. 2017. URL: www.lloydspharmacy.com/ (accessed 8 December 2017).
  127. Harding C, Cottell J. Childcare Survey 2018. Family and Childcare Trust; 2018. URL: www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/childcare-survey-2018 (accessed 1 February 2018).
  128. Fiebig DG. Seemingly Unrelated Regression. In Baltagi BH, editor. A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics. Maldon, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. pp. 101–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996249.ch6 doi: 10.1002/9780470996249.ch6. [DOI]
  129. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  130. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000;19:3219–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219::AID-SIM623>3.0.CO;2-P doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23&#x0003c;3219::AID-SIM623&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-P. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.635 doi: 10.1002/hec.635. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  133. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Jaime Caro J, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis: principles of good practice – report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014;17:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291. [DOI] [PubMed]
  134. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  135. O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002889. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  136. Drabble SJ, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. Describing qualitative research undertaken with randomised controlled trials in grant proposals: a documentary analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-24 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  137. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009;339:b3496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3496 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  138. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  139. Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W. Analysis: Practices, Principles and Processes. In Lewis J, Ritchie J, editors. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2003. pp. 199–218.
  140. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011;6:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  142. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005;6:134–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904273387 doi: 10.1177/1524839904273387. [DOI] [PubMed]
  143. Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t ‘just do it’. J Am Board Fam Pract 2005;18:541–5. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541. [DOI] [PubMed]
  144. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012;7:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  145. Schatzki TR. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527470 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527470. [DOI]
  146. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Oxford: Polity Press; 1984.
  147. Bourdieu P. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1990.
  148. Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250655 doi: 10.4135/9781446250655. [DOI]
  149. Wieringa S, Engebretsen E, Heggen K, Greenhalgh T. Has evidence-based medicine ever been modern? A Latour-inspired understanding of a changing EBM. J Eval Clin Pract 2017;23:964–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12752 doi: 10.1111/jep.12752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  150. Vihalemm T, Keller M, Kiisel M. From Intervention to Social Change: A Guide to Reshaping Everyday Practices. Surrey: Ashgate; 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315583396 doi: 10.4324/9781315583396. [DOI]
  151. Flemming K, Adamson J, Atkin K. Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials. Palliat Med 2008;22:123–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216307087319 doi: 10.1177/0269216307087319. [DOI] [PubMed]
  152. Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study: the STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(48). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta11480 doi: 10.3310/hta11480. [DOI] [PubMed]
  153. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  154. Landes DP, Jardine C. Targeting dental resources to reduce inequalities in oral health in the North East of England: a health equity audit methodology to evaluate the effects of practice location, practice population and deprivation. Br Dent J 2010;209:E3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.676 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.676. [DOI] [PubMed]
  155. Office for National Statistics (ONS), National Records of Scotland, Northern Ireland Statistics Research Agency. 2011 Census Aggregate Data: UK Data Service. 2017. https://doi.org/10.5257/census/aggregate-2011-2 (accessed 26 November 2019). doi: 10.5257/census/aggregate-2011-2. [DOI]
  156. Information Services Division (ISD), National Dental Inspection Programme (NDIP) 2016. Report of the 2016 Detailed National Dental Inspection Programme of Primary 1 Children and the Basic Inspection of Primary 1 and Primary 7 Children. Edinburgh: ISD Scotland; 2016.
  157. Pahel BT, Rozier RG, Slade GD. Parental perceptions of children’s oral health: the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-6 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  158. Taylor GK, Macpherson LM. An investigation into the use of bitewing radiography in children in Greater Glasgow. Br Dent J 2004;196:563–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811228 doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811228. [DOI] [PubMed]
  159. Newman B, Seow WK, Kazoullis S, Ford D, Holcombe T. Clinical detection of caries in the primary dentition with and without bitewing radiography. Aust Dent J 2009;54:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.01084.x doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.01084.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  160. Pocock SJ, Stone GW. The primary outcome fails – what next? N Engl J Med 2016;375:861–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1510064 doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510064. [DOI] [PubMed]
  161. Hesse D, de Araujo MP, Olegário IC, Innes N, Raggio DP, Bonifácio CC. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1270-z doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1270-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  162. BaniHani A, Deery C, Toumba J, Duggal M. Effectiveness, costs and patient acceptance of a conventional and a biological treatment approach for carious primary teeth in children. Caries Res 2019;53:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1159/000487201 doi: 10.1159/000487201. [DOI] [PubMed]
  163. Lord J, Longworth L, Singh J, Onyimadu O, Fricke J, Bayliss S, et al. Economic Analysis of Oral Health Promotion Approaches for Dental Teams: NICE Public Health Guideline on Oral Health Promotion Approaches for Dental Teams (GID-PHG60). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.
  164. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Sedation in Children and Young People. Costing report. London: NICE; 2010.
  165. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 8 December 2017).
  166. NHS Business Services Authority, NHS Dental Services. Pay Statements and Schedules. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/activity-processing-and-payment-services/pay-statements-and-schedules (accessed 8 December 2017).

RESOURCES