"Strong Teeth" – an Early-phase Study to Assess the Feasibility of an Oral Health Intervention Delivered by Dental Teams to Parents of Young Children

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-126720/v1

Download PDF

Research article

"Strong Teeth" – an Early-phase Study to Assess the Feasibility of an Oral Health Intervention Delivered by Dental Teams to Parents of Young Children

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-126720/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Tooth decay (caries) is a significant health burden in young children. There is strong evidence for the benefits of establishing appropriate home-based oral health behaviours in early childhood. Dental teams are well placed to provide this information and there is clear advice on what oral health information should be given to parents. However, research has shown that there is limited guidance, training and resources on how dental teams should deliver this advice. "Strong Teeth" is a complex oral health intervention, using evidence-based resources and training underpinned by behaviour change psychology, to support behaviour change conversations in dental practice. This early phase evaluation aims to assess the feasibility of this intervention, prior to a full-scale trial.

Methods: The study recruited 15 parents of children aged 0-2-years-old and 21 parents of children aged 3-5 years old, from five NHS dental practices across West Yorkshire. Participant demographics, self-reported brushing behaviours, dietary habits, a dental examination and three objective measures of toothbrushing were collected in a home-setting at baseline, then at 2-weeks and 2-months post-intervention. Recruitment, retention and intervention delivery were analysed as key process outcomes. Brushing habits were compared to national toothbrushing guidelines – the Delivering Better Oral Health toolkit (Public Health England).

Results: Strong Teeth was feasible to deliver in a General Dental Practice setting in 94% of cases. Feasibility of recruitment (37%) exceeded progression criterion, however retention of participants (75%) was below the progression criterion for the 0-2 age group. More than half of children recruited aged 3-5-years had caries experience (52%). Total compliance to toothbrushing guidance at baseline was low (28%) and increased after the intervention (52%), an improvement that was statistically significant. Dietary habits remained largely unchanged. Plaque scores significantly decreased in the 3-5-year-olds and toothbrushing duration increased in all age groups.

Conclusion: "Strong Teeth" intervention delivery and data collection in the home setting was feasible. There was a positive indication of impact on reported toothbrushing behaviours. Some amendments to study design, particularly relating to the inclusion of the 0-2-year-old group, should be considered before progression to a full trial.

Trial Registration: ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN10709150

Dentistry

caries

training

behaviour change

paediatric

prevention

parents

Oral health is integral to holistic wellbeing¹. However, dental decay (caries) is one the most prevalent non-communicable childhood diseases in the world². Nationally, by the age of five, nearly a quarter of children in England have experienced caries with an average of three teeth affected³. Significant regional inequalities exist between children with and without caries, with deprivation a key risk factor⁴. West Yorkshire has a population of 2.2 million and some of its urban areas are among the most deprived in England⁵. In Bradford, a city in northern England, 36% of five-year-olds have caries experience, significantly higher than the national average³.

The consequences of untreated caries are well documented and include pain, infection, disturbed sleep and time missed from school^6–8. Caries creates a substantial financial burden for the National Health Service (NHS), with over £50 million pounds spent annually on tooth extractions in hospital and is the most common reason for a child to have a general anaesthetic^9–10. Caries is an almost entirely preventable disease, therefore facilitating parents to introduce positive oral health behaviours during children’s early years, particularly in at risk groups, is crucial to long-lasting good oral health¹¹. These behaviours include advice on brushing twice a day with the correct fluoride concentration toothpaste and limiting sugary foods and drinks.

Research by Tickle et al¹² demonstrated that despite regular attendance at the dentist and receiving oral health advice following national guidance¹³, 40% of children still developed caries by the age of six. Although PHE outlines what oral health advice should be given in the Delivering Better Oral Health (DBOH) toolkit¹³, it does not suggest how this information should be delivered. Numerous barriers to behaviour change conversations have been identified, including parental attitudes towards oral health, parental motivation and dental professionals’ knowledge, time and resources^14–20. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that health conversations underpinned by behaviour change theory are more likely to be successful²¹. A recent randomised control trial (RCT)²² has shown a reduction in subsequent caries in children who have had a dental general anaesthetic, following a behaviour change conversation with a dental nurse trained in motivational interviewing. Encouraging parents to change oral health behaviours for their children requires more than mere information delivery; and the wider dental team need to be supported with appropriate resources and training to undertake this successfully. Few interventions currently exist to tackle this issue.

"Strong Teeth"⁴⁹ is a complex oral health intervention underpinned by behaviour change psychology^23–24 and national guidelines for oral health, the DBOH toolkit¹³. "Strong Teeth" provides evidence-based resources to support the delivery oral health advice and training for dental teams in effective behaviour change conversations. Table 1 outlines the rationale and key components of the intervention. Early-phase feasibility studies are a vital developmental milestone in the intervention development process, exploring the invention acceptability, recruitment and retention of participants, initial signals of impact and anticipating problems prior to a full-scale trial²⁵. This paper focusses on the quantitative findings of this early-phase evaluation – qualitative results are reported in a separate paper²⁶.

Table 1

Intervention development using TIDieR checklist⁴⁸
Brief name of intervention	"Strong Teeth" – a complex intervention delivered in general dental practice to the parents of young children.
Why (rationale, theory, goal)	Caries is a significant health burden in young children. There is strong evidence for the benefits of establishing appropriate home-based oral health behaviours in early childhood and these benefits persist over the life course. These behaviours include brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and limiting sugary foods and drinks. However, how dental teams effectively support parents to establish these oral health behaviours is uncertain. "Strong Teeth" is a complex oral health intervention, underpinned by behaviour change psychology to support oral health conversations in practice and training in effective behaviour change conversations.
What 1. Materials for intervention and training (access to materials) 2. Procedures (describe activities and support activities)	All dental team members delivering the intervention attended a one-day training course, covering evidence-based techniques for undertaking effective behaviour change conversations and guidance on how to use the "Strong Teeth" resources. The "Strong Teeth" resource ‘pack’ was issued to each dental practice, including an oral health chat sheet, conversational flowchart, motivational laminate, posters and four advice leaflets for toothbrushing, healthy eating, behaviour management and advice for friends and family. Parent’s choose an area of their child’s oral health behaviours they want to discuss. The parent’s level of motivation is identified and following the flowchart, the professional then undertakes a supportive behaviour change conversation. Parents explore current barriers to this behaviour and encouraged to identify their own simple and achievable solutions. The 3-5-year-olds were given an Oral B electric toothbrush and parents are shown how to use it. A tailor-made action-plan is developed and agreed upon, to be followed-up at the next appointment. Ongoing support and advice were given to the dental practices via telephone and through regular practice visits by the team liaison.
Who provided (describe expertise, background, specific training)	The prevention is designed for delivery by Dental Care Professionals – dentists, dental care professionals and dental nurses with additional training.
How (modes of delivery, e.g. face to face/individual group)	Face-to-face appointment with the dental professional and parent/child.
Where (types of locations)	In dental practice
When and how much (how often is intervention delivered, duration)	For purposes of pilot study, the "Strong Teeth" intervention is delivered in a one-off visit, followed-up over 2 months. However, the intervention has been designed to focus on cyclical, continuous improvement, which could be delivered continually throughout childhood.
Tailoring (how will intervention be individualized)	The oral health conversation is guided by parents self-identified barriers to oral health, and an individualised action-plan is created.
Modifications (any changes during the study)	Reported throughout manuscript.
How well 1. Intervention fidelity assessed by 2. Actual adherence	Recruitment, retention and feasibility of delivery. Suggestion of impact in the self-reported and observed measures of parental-supervised toothbrushing.
Brief name of intervention	"Strong Teeth" – a complex intervention delivered in general dental practice to the parents of young children.
Why (rationale, theory, goal)	Caries is a significant health burden in young children. There is strong evidence for the benefits of establishing appropriate home-based oral health behaviours in early childhood and these benefits persist over the life course. These behaviours include brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and limiting sugary foods and drinks. However, how dental teams effectively support parents to establish these oral health behaviours is uncertain. "Strong Teeth" is a complex oral health intervention, underpinned by behaviour change psychology to support oral health conversations in practice and training in effective behaviour change conversations.
What 1. Materials for intervention and training (access to materials) 2. Procedures (describe activities and support activities)	All dental team members delivering the intervention attended a one-day training course, covering evidence-based techniques for undertaking effective behaviour change conversations and guidance on how to use the "Strong Teeth" resources. "Strong Teeth" resource ‘pack’ was issued to each dental practice, including a conversational flowchart, motivational laminate, posters and four advice leaflets for toothbrushing, healthy eating, behaviour management and advice for friends and family. Parent’s choose an area of their child’s oral health behaviours they want to talk about. Parent’s level of motivation is identified and following the flowchart, the professional then undertakes a supportive behaviour change conversation. Parents are allowed to explore the current barriers to this behaviour and encouraged to identify their own simple and achievable solutions. A tailor-made action-plan is made, to be followed-up at the next appointment. Ongoing support and advice were given to the dental practices via telephone and through regular practice visits by the team liaison.
Who provided (describe expertise, background, specific training)	The prevention is designed for delivery by Dental Care Professionals – dentists, dental care professionals and dental nurses with additional trainings.
How (modes of delivery, e.g. face to face/individual group)	Face-to-face appointment with the dental professional and parent/child.
Where (types of locations)	In dental practice
When and how much (how often is intervention delivered, duration)	For purposes of pilot study, the "Strong Teeth" intervention is delivered in a one-off visit, followed-up over 2 months. However, the intervention can be delivered at regular dental reviews, throughout childhood, to encourage continuous improvement and maintenance of any positive behaviour change.
Tailoring (how will intervention be individualized)	Conversation is guided by parents self-identified barriers to oral health. Individualised action-plan created.
Modifications (any changes during the study)	Reported throughout manuscript.
How well 1. Intervention fidelity assessed by 2. Actual adherence	Recruitment, retention and feasibility of delivery. Suggestion of impact in the self-reported and observed measures of parental-supervised toothbrushing.

As stated in the "Strong Teeth" protocol paper²⁴ the primary aim of this early-phase study was to:

Explore the feasibility of delivering the "Strong Teeth" intervention to parents of children aged 0–5 years old, reviewing study findings against the progression criteria in Table 2:

Table 2

Progression criteria to definitive trial²⁴

Additional secondary objectives²⁴ included:

1. To study the mechanisms of action for the "Strong Teeth" intervention.

2. To describe the changes in dietary behaviour and parental-supervised brushing (PSB) as a result of the "Strong Teeth" intervention in children aged 0–5 years old.

3. To examine the impact of providing children aged 3–5 years old with an Oral-B electric rechargeable toothbrush, with respect to acceptability and tooth- brushing behaviours

Study design

This mixed-methods early-phase feasibility study followed the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for ‘Developing and evaluating complex interventions’²⁵.

Participants

Best practice recommendations²⁷ advise pilot studies to use a sample of at least 30 – providing a 95% confidence interval (CI) of no more than ±17.9%. We aimed to recruit 40 parents and children (dyads): 20 parents of children aged 0-2 years old and 20 parents of children aged 3-5 years old. Anticipating a 15% loss to follow-up, the achieved sample size of n=36 was sufficient.

Using professional contacts, dental practices working in West Yorkshire were approached to participate in the study and deliver the "Strong Teeth" intervention. Each dental practice was asked to identify a range of participants who were representative of the local population. For inclusion - parents had to be present during the home visit, needed to speak English and have no other children already participating in the study. The practices contacted suitable dyads due for their routine dental examination by telephone and briefly explained the study. For those who showed an interest in participating, study information was sent by post and contact details were shared with the research team. If willing to take part, a baseline home visit was organised to undertake consenting and baseline data collection.

Intervention

A detailed summary of the "Strong Teeth" intervention is outlined in Table 1.

Data collection

Data collection was carried out over four visits by four dental professionals experienced in paediatric dentistry, supported by three research assistants. For the purpose of this early-phase study, the use of intra oral photographs as a means of calibration was adopted. An experienced British Association of the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) examiner provided training to all the dental researchers to ensure a consistent approach to inspection procedures, tooth codes and diagnostic criteria. Dental researchers underwent calibration for caries and plaque detection and their agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa.

Data was collected in the home setting, as the intervention is intended to influence home-based behaviours. Children were examined supine, using a disposable dental mirror and a head torch for illumination. Dental probes were not utilised and cotton rolls could be used to remove debris.

1) First visit – consent and baseline (BL).

A self-reported questionnaire, a dental examination and three objective measures of PSB were undertaken:

a) Dental examination

b) Child’s plaque levels per sextant

c) Duration of toothbrushing

d) Frequency of toothbrushing

2) Second Visit – two-week follow-up (2WFU)

Two weeks following the "Strong Teeth" intervention, further self-report questionnaire data and measures a-d collected.

3) Third visit – Two-month follow-up (2MFU)

Two months following the "Strong Teeth" intervention, further self-report questionnaire data and measures a-d collected.

4) Dyads who completed the study were invited to participate in the qualitative evaluation of the study, via a semi –structured interview²⁶.

A £10 Love2Shop voucher was issued after each home-based data collection visit.

The self- report questionnaire collected information on participant sociodemographic data, as well as toothbrushing and dietary behaviours, based on validated measures^28-29. Self-report determinants of toothbrushing were measured against national guidance. The DBOH toolkit¹³ outlines five key items for toothbrushing: parental supervision, strength of toothpaste, amount of toothpaste, frequency and after-brushing habits. A compound measure of ‘total’ compliance to DBOH guidelines was also calculated (i.e. dyads compliant with all items of DBOH advice). Dietary data was collected based on child’s frequency of consumption, using an established dietary questionnaire used within a similar population²⁸. Frequency scoring of food and drinks was non-linear (e.g. 0=none, 1=less than once a month, etc.).

Teeth were examined for cavitated dentinal caries and restorations, using the BASCD criteria³⁰. A dmft (decayed, missing and filled teeth) score was calculated based on the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth. Child’s plaque levels per sextant were established using the Oral Hygiene Index³¹. Data on frequency of brushing was collected via the ‘Disney Magic Timer’ smart phone application or a paper diary, if preferred by the parent.

Videotaping of child-parent toothbrushing was undertaken by a member of the research team using a small action camera (GoPro HERO 5, Go Pro Inc). The video was used to evaluate the duration of toothbrushing and scored using methodology described in previous research³². Videos also provided an objective method of assessment for the DBOH guidelines and dyad interaction, which is beyond the scope of this article and will be reported in a different paper.

Data Analysis

Reporting continuous outcomes at different time points (baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months), CI’s were calculated using a t-distribution. For categorical outcomes, the CI’s for rate were calculated based on the binomial distribution.

In respect to self-reported toothbrushing compliance to DBOH guidance, repeated measurements were fitted to a multi-level model with timepoints nested within dyads. Maximum likelihood fitting was used rather than reduced maximum likelihood. Within the model, a term was added for ‘time points’ increasing the degrees of freedom by two. This enabled the reporting of compliance rates at each time point and formal statistical testing of the effect of the intervention over time.

The statistical significance of the time term was then determined by use of the log-likelihood ratio test. Similarly, a two-level linear regression was fitted for plaque scores and changes over time tested through a log-likelihood test. This analysis was valid under the assumption that drop out was at random. The analysis was undertaken in the R statistical software environment³³ and using the lme4 package³⁴.

The progression criteria to full trial is outlined in Table 2. This quantitative analysis focuses on feasibility and looks to assess process outcomes A, C and D. These relate to feasibility of undertaking the "Strong Teeth" intervention, adequate recruitment (>25%) and adequate retention (>85%) of participants.

Inter-Examiner Reliability

Inter examiner reliability of scoring from inspections was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa, where a value of 0.85 showed that scores were very highly significantly different from results that would have been obtained at random (p<0.001), showing a high level of agreement.

Recruitment and Retention

Five (n=5) NHS dental practices (with postcodes across Leeds and Bradford: LS10, BD2, BD4, BD6 and BD14) were recruited to deliver the "Strong Teeth" intervention. Dyads were recruited over a 6-month period between October 2018 and April 2019 (Figure 1 shows the recruitment flowchart). From 126 invitations, 36 dyads were recruited - 21 aged 3-5 years-old and 15 aged 0-2 years-old, resulting in a recruitment rate of 37%. Nine participants were lost over the course of the trial, with the large drop-out occurring in the 0-2-year-old group (n=6), resulting in a retention rate of 75%.

Demographics

Half (n=36) of dyads lived in the 10% most deprived areas of England, according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019⁵. At baseline, no children in the 0-2-year-old group (n=15) had active caries or caries experience; however, 52% (n=21) of 3-5-year-olds had caries experience, with nine children having active or untreated caries. The mean dmft of the children with caries was 7.9 (±SD=4.7). Table 3 outlines the baseline demographic data in detail:

Table 3

Baseline demographic data
Characteristic	(N=36)
Age of Parent
Mean	35
Range (min, max)	24, 50
% over 30	80.6%
Birthplace
England Pakistan	86%
England Pakistan	3%
India	3%
Ireland	3%
Other	6%
Number of children
Multi-child house	83%
Qualifications
None	6%
5 or more GCSEs	8%
A-level or equivalent	28%
University degree	31%
Employment
Currently employed	67%
Household Income
Less than £16100	28%
£16100 to £ 21249	11%
£21250 - £27999 £28000 - £38399 £38399 + Not answered	8% 22% 17% 14%
Finances
‘Living Comfortably’	22%
‘Doing Alright’	56%
‘Just Getting By’	19%
Not answered	3%
IMD Centile
Most Deprived 1^th	50%
2^nd	6%
3^rd	8%
4^th	11%
5^th	3%
6^th	14%
7^th	6%
8^th	3%
9^th	0%
10^thLeast Deprived	0%

Feasibility of Data Collection and Intervention Delivery

It was feasible to collect data in the home setting, with 89 out of a possible 93 home visits (96%) undertaken by the research team - Figure 1 summarises the reasons for missed visits. Of the dyads who underwent initial data collection, 94% returned to their registered dental practices for the "Strong Teeth" intervention. Extensive evaluation looking at the acceptability of the intervention to participants and practices is described in the parallel qualitative paper²⁶.

Intervention Outcomes

Self-Reported Toothbrushing Behaviours

For self-reported toothbrushing habits, ‘total’ compliance to DBOH guidelines increased substantially from 28% (n=36) at baseline to 52% (n=27) at two-months following the "Strong Teeth" intervention, and the difference was found to be statistically significant (95%CI = 0.13, 0.42), as represented by Figure 2. Compliance to all individual components of the DBOH guidelines showed small, albeit insignificant, improvements after the intervention and are shown in Table 4:

Table 4

Self-reported toothbrushing pre and post intervention with effect estimate (95% CI)
‘Delivering Better Oral Health’ (DBOH) guidelines	Baseline (n=36)	Two-week follow-up (n=26)	Two-month follow-up (n=27)
Using >1000ppm fluoride toothpaste (>1350pppm for high risk caries children)	88.9% (0.79, 0.90)	100% (100,100)	100% (100,100)
Using smear (0-2 years) or pea-sized (3-5 years) amount of toothpaste	75.0% (0.61, 0.89)	76.9% (0.61, 0.93)	77.7% (0.62, 0.94)
Parental supervision	86.1% (0.75, 0.97)	96.2% (0.89, 1.00)	88.9% (0.77, 1.00)
No rinsing after brushing	80.6% (0.68, 0.94)	84.6% (0.71, 0.99)	88.9% (0.77, 1.00)
Spit/wipe toothpaste residue, no swallowing	75.0% (0.61, 0.89)	80.8% (0.76, 0.96)	81.5% (0.67, 0.97)
Brushing at least twice a day, including at night	80.6% (0.68, 0.94)	80.8% (0.66, 0.96)	81.5% (0.67, 0.97)
Total compliance to all DBOH guidelines	27.8% (0.13, 0.42)	53.8% (0.35, 0.73)	51.9% (0.34, 0.70)

Dietary Habits

There were no significant changes in either age group’s diet after the intervention, however there was a small increase in consumption of certain snacks: cakes (BL: 1.8, 2MFU: 3.4), biscuits (BL: 3.7, 2MFU: 4.2) and sweets (BL: 3.3, 2MFU: 3.8) in the 0-2 age group. Table 5 provides the dietary data for both age groups over the course of the study.

Table 5

Dietary Data

Frequency of food and drinks averaged for all participants across the 3 data collection visits, coded using the following key:

0 - None; 1 - less than once a month; 2 - 1-3 time per month; 3 – once per week; 4 – 2-4 times per week; 5 – 5-6 times per week; 6 once per day; 7 – 2-3 times per day; 8 – 4-5 times per day; 9 – 6 or more times a day
	Mean Frequency 0-2 years
	Baseline	2 Week Follow-Up	2 Month Follow-Up
Water	7.5	7.2	7.8
Milk	6.6	6.8	6.8
Sugared drinks	0.7	0.5	0.8
Cakes	1.8	2.8	3.4
Biscuits	3.7	4	4.2
Sweets	3.3	3.5	3.8
Fresh Fruit	6.4	6.6	7
Vegetables	5.5	5.8	5.8

	Mean Frequency 3-5 years
	Baseline	2 Week Follow-Up	2 Month Follow-Up
Water	7.6	7.7	7.6
Milk	6	6.3	6.2
Sugared drinks	1.4	1.6	2
Cakes	3.1	2.9	2.7
Biscuits	4	3.6	4.1
Sweets	4.9	4.4	4.6
Fresh Fruit	6.6	7	6.4
Vegetables	5.8	5.8	5.5

Plaque Scores

Plaque scores were a supplementary measure of objective brushing. In the 0-2-year-old group, plaque scores varied substantially between visits and showed little overall change between baseline (27%, n=14; 95%CI = 0.17, 0.37) and the final follow-up (26%, n=8; 95%CI = 0.11, 0.41). There was an incremental decrease in plaque scores in the 3-5-year-olds, the group who used the Oral-B electric toothbrush, between baseline (43%, n=21; 95%CI = 0.35, 0.51), two-week follow-up (36%, n=17; 95%CI = 0.25, 0.47) and the two month follow-up (28%, n=18; 95%CI = 0.18, 0.39). The distribution of plaque scores over time is represented by Figure 3. The log-likelihood test gave a chi-square value of 6.66 with 2 degrees of freedom, p = 0.036, demonstrating a statistically significant effect of the intervention over time.

Toothbrushing Duration

Out of 89 home visits, video recording of toothbrushing was available for 98% of participants. Mean toothbrushing duration increased significantly all groups after the intervention, from baseline (76.21 seconds, n=35; 95%CI = 65.5, 86.9) to two-week follow-up (88.88 secs, n=25; 95%CI = 79.8, 98.0) and two-month follow-up (94.20 secs, n=27; 95%CI = 85.5, 100). There was an increase in parent toothbrushing duration (i.e., parents actively brushing their child’s teeth) from baseline (44.35 secs, n=35; 95% CI: 29.9, 58.8), which was statistically significant at the two-month follow-up (61.32, n=27; 95%CI = 49.8, 72.8).

Harms

There were no adverse events, serious adverse events or unexpected serious adverse reactions reported during the early-phase study.

The main aim of this early-phase feasibility study was to explore the feasibility of delivering the "Strong Teeth" intervention to parents of children aged 0–5 years old, its impact on oral health behaviours and review study findings against progression criteria (Table 2).

Recruitment and Retention

Adequate recruitment of patients was a key outcome measure, with a target set of 25% of eligible participants. Positively, the early-phase study had a final recruitment rate of 37%. The recruitment of dyads in the 0-2-year-old group was more challenging, however, and took longer than the 3-5-year-old group. In 2019, only 14% of 0-2-year olds attended the dentist in the District of Bradford³⁵ reflecting low national rates of attendance of young children in general dental practice³⁶. Parental beliefs, such as not needing to take children to the dentist until they have ‘a full set of teeth’ or have a dental problem, have been cited as barriers to child dental registration³⁷. Eligibility criteria may have also narrowed potential participants - some parents were unwilling to accommodate a home visit and, due to the lack of access to interpreting services, only families that spoke English could be included in the study.

The study’s final retention rate was 75%, lower than the target set of 85%. Six participants were lost after baseline, which was the biggest single drop during the trial (n=9), two-thirds of which occurred in the 0-2-year-olds. In this younger, pre-cooperative, age group, examinations were more challenging, as were organising home visits around set routines - potentially barriers for continued participation in the early-phase study. The follow-up schedule was devised using evidence on the time taken for habitual behaviours to become established³⁸, however, there were only small differences between the 2-week and 2-month visit results – changes were established and maintained at the second follow-up. Options to enhance retention could include reducing the number of follow-up visits or focusing on the older 3-5-year-old cohort.

Sample

The sample of families in this early-phase study ranged in terms of background, qualifications and income, but demographics were largely representative of the high level of deprivation in the local area⁵. The average age of a parent in the study was 35, which is older than the average age of a first-time parent in England (28.9 years)³⁹ but reflects a high proportion of study children in multi-child households. None of the 0-2-year-olds exhibited evidence of caries, however, more than half of the children aged 3-5-years-old had caries experience. This prevalence is higher than the local average (36%) for 5 years old children³. Critically, the study recruited dyads at high risk of caries based on their demographic backgrounds and the children’s caries experience.

Feasibility of delivery

Importantly, intervention delivery in dental practice (n=34/36; 94%) and data collection in the home setting was feasible. The intervention targeted home-based behaviours, therefore collecting data in this environment provides greater insights into home behaviours, as opposed to collecting data in a clinical setting, for example, the ability to film home toothbrushing. Contacting parents and organising visits within a particular time frame did pose challenges for the research team, however the vast majority of data collection visits could be undertaken (n=89/93; 96%). Data collection in a home setting may have discouraged participation for some, but this did not impact on anticipated recruitment rates.

Intervention Outcomes

Self-reported toothbrushing behaviours

As outlined by Table 2, efficacy was not a primary outcome of this pilot study. Moreover, any suggestion of impact needs to be considered with caution within these small study numbers. Nonetheless, we can report encouraging signs of improvement in oral health behaviours after the intervention. At the final data collection visit, there was a statistically significant increase in ‘total’ DBOH compliance. There were small increases in compliance to individual DBOH items (Table 3), however, these were non-significant within themselves. These findings suggest there was greater behaviour change in the same dyads, as opposed to global improvements within a specific behaviour.

‘Total’ compliance was 27.8% at baseline – much lower than previously reported figures^{29, 40-41}. Traditionally only two or three measures of toothbrushing behaviours have been considered, and this was the basis of the progression criteria for 80% of participants adopting oral health behaviours post intervention (Table 2). A key finding from this study is the low level of compliance when the five-point DBOH criteria is used. This is important, as the absence of any of these five behaviours is associated with dental caries and hence the inclusion in the guidance¹³.

Dietary Habits

There was little reported change in dyad dietary habits over the course of the study. As the intervention is a parent-led conversation based on self-identified oral health barriers, the discussion may have focused more on brushing or a different concern. The efficacy and evidence base for one-to-one dietary interventions at reducing sugar intake is also limited in this age group⁴². There was an increase in sugary food consumption in the 0-2 group, however, this is unsurprising in the context of child development, the weaning process (and the increase in consumption of all types of foods), and is similar to findings of other similar studies ^43-44.

Plaque Scores

Plaque scores for the 3-5-year-old group (the children using an Oral B electric toothbrush) showed an incremental and significant decrease between baseline visit and follow-up visits. Plaque scores in the 0-2-year olds varied substantially and were more difficult to undertake, which is unsurprising given the behavioural management challenges in this younger age group. This is consistent with other interventional studies that have found a bigger improvement in plaque scores in older children⁴⁵.

Toothbrushing Duration

Active toothbrushing duration showed a positive and significant increase after the "Strong Teeth" intervention, increasing by an average of 18 seconds. Moreover, active parental brushing increased significantly, by an average of 17 seconds, also demonstrating an increase in the ratio of parent-to-child brushing. Other studies³² have showed much shorter active toothbrushing durations in a similar aged cohort, however this was with the use of self-recorded home videos, in the absence of a research team presence.

Limitations

This early-phase feasibility study recruited participants from general dental practice. Discretion, therefore, should be taken regarding the generalisation of this data sample. Participants recruited may have been more dentally motivated and oral health aware than the general population, although this was not supported by the self-reported behaviours or high levels of caries experience, nor by other RCTs looking at dental attending populations¹². As outlined in previous research,³⁷ parents may be more likely to register their child if they are having dental pain or problems.

Collecting dietary data presented several challenges. The dietary questionnaire, although a validated data collection method,²⁸ had limitations: it relied on recall, parents were sometimes unsure of diet at nursery/with grandparents, and it did not account for seasonal differences. Anecdotally, researchers found some parents struggled with definitions used in the frequency table (e.g. ‘sugar-free' as opposed to ‘no added sugar’ beverages). Revision of the dietary data collection method will be considered prior to progression to full trial. Specific high-risk dietary behaviours - such as the consumption of sugar immediately before bedtime - can be reported more reliably and has been significantly related to caries experience⁴⁶.

For observed measures of PSB, such as plaque score and toothbrushing duration, presence of the research team could have induced an observer effect (parents brushing for longer when being filmed). It was planned to assess toothbrushing frequency using the Disney Magic Timer smartphone application or a paper diary, however, there was mixed uptake of these methods that yielded little useable data. Barriers for use are discussed in the qualitative paper from this study²⁶.

This early phase study has shown that "Strong Teeth" is a feasible oral health intervention for dental practices and parents of children aged 0–5 years old. Data collection in the home setting was acceptable to those families recruited and provided a valuable insight into home-life, including the filming of toothbrushing behaviours in the home setting. The quantitative data has shown a positive indication of impact on compliance to national toothbrushing guidelines and a reduction in plaque levels of children aged 3–5 who used the Oral-B electric toothbrush. Reported dietary habits remained unchanged. The recruitment and retention of children aged 0–2 was challenging and, if this younger cohort of children was to be included, amendments to the study design would be required before progression to full trial.

BL - Baseline

BASCD - British Association of the Study of Community Dentistry

DBOH - Delivering Better Oral Health

DenTCRU - Dental Translational and Clinical Research Unit

dmft – Decayed Missing and Filled Teeth (primary teeth)

IMD - Index of Multiple Deprivation

MRC - Medical Research Council

NICE - National Institute of Clinical Excellence

NIHR – National Institute of Health Research

NHS - National Health Service

PSB - Parental-Supervised Brushing

RCT - Randomised Control Trial

2MFU - 2-Month Follow-Up

2WFU - 2-Week Follow-Up

Ethical approval and consent to participate:

Ethical approval and research permissions were successfully obtained from: Yorkshire and The Humber—Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (18.YH.0326) and Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 248833). Informed written consent was obtained from all parents for themselves and on behalf of their children aged 0-5 years, prior to taking part in the study.

Consent for publication:

Consent for publication was obtained from all participants involved in "Strong Teeth".

Availability of data and materials:

"Strong Teeth"⁴⁹ resources and the protocol paper⁵⁰ is available online. Further information is available from the author on reasonable requests.

Competing Interests:

The authors declare no competing interests. PD and KGB have received modest fees to speak about "Strong Teeth" at professional conferences.

Funding:

The Procter & Gamble (P&G) Company funded the development of the "Strong Teeth" resources and evaluation costs.

Authors’ contributions:

PD is the principal investigator for the grant and led the development and writing of the trial protocol. KGB, ZM, SP, TZ and RW contributed to the study design, methods and writing of the trial protocol. EG led the analysis and writing of the manuscript with major contributions from PD, KGB, AB and RW. AB, EG, JP, LR, TZ undertook data collection, data cleaning and monitoring aspects of the protocol. All authors read and contributed to the writing of the paper and have read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank Carron Paige, Kerina Tull, Morvin Patel and Rebecca Smith for their contribution to the “Strong Teeth” study and data collection. The study delivery is supported by DenTCRU (Dental Translational and Clinical Research Unit), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Facility. Three of the authors of this paper (PD, ZM and KG-B) are supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaborations Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR ARC YH) www.arc-yh.nihr.ac.uk. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

World Health Organisation. Ending Childhood Dental Caries – WHO Implementation Manual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330643?show=full
Kassebaum, N., Bernabe, E., Dahiya, M., Bhandari, B., Murray, C. and Marcenes, W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. Journal of dental research. 2015;94:650-58.
Public Health England National Dental Epidemiology Programme for England: oral health survey of 5-year-olds 2019. London: Department of Health Publications; 2020.
Masood M., Mnatzaganian G. and Baker, S. Inequalities in dental caries in children within the UK: Have there been changes over time? Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2019;47:71-77. doi:10.1111/cdoe.12426.
Office of National Statistics – Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The English Indicies of Deprivation 2019. 2019. Available from : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833947/IoD2019_Research_Report.pdf
Baghdadi, Z.D. Children's oral health‐related quality of life and associated factors: mid‐term changes after dental treatment under general anesthesia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2015: 7:106–113.
Gilchrist, F., Marshman, Z., Deery, C. and Rodd H.D. The impact of dental caries on children and young people: what they have to say? International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2015;25:327–338.
Nuttall, N.M., Steele, J.G., Evans, D., Chadwick, B., Morris, A.J. and Hill K. The reported impact of oral condition on children in the United Kingdom, 2003. British Dental Journal. 2006;551-555.
Public Health England. Health matters: Child dental health. 2017. Available from: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2017/06/14/health-matters-child-dental-health/
NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity 2018-2019. NHS Digital: Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/2018-19
Hall-Scullin, E., Whitehead, H., Milsom, K.M., Tickle, M., Su, T.L. and Walsh, T. Longitudinal study of caries development from childhood through to adolescence. Journal of Dental Research. 2017;96:762-767.
Tickle, M., O’Neill, C., Donaldson, M., Birch, S., Noble, S., Killough, S., Murphy, L., Greer, M., Brodison, J., Verghis, R. and Worthington, H.V. A randomized controlled trial of caries prevention in dental practice. Journal of Dental Research. 2015;96:741–746.
Public Health England. Delivering Better Oral Health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention. London: Department of Health Publications. 2017.
Aljafari, A.K., Scambler, S., Gallagher, J.E. and Hosey M.T. Parental views on delivering preventive advice to children referred for treatment of dental caries under general anaesthesia: a qualitative investigation. Community Dental Health. 2014;31:75–9.
Aljafari, A.K., Gallagher, J.E. and Hosey, M.T. Failure on all fronts: general dental practitioners’ views on promoting oral health in high caries risk children – a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0032-8
Bhatti, A., Vinall-Collier, K., Duara, R., Owen, J. Gray-Burrows, K. & Day P. Dental Teams, Parents and Children’s Experiences of Oral Health Advice – a supplementary analysis. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, submitted.
Duara, R., Vinall-Collier, K., Owen, J. and Day, P. Final report to funder – Dental professional’s experiences of delivering oral health advice to children and their parents/caregivers: focus groups with dental practitioners and their wider teams. White Rose Research. Available from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/153141/
Duara, R., Vinall-Collier, K., Owen, J. & Day, P. Final Report to Funder - Parent’s experiences of receiving oral health advice from dental health professionals for their children and factors influencing oral health practices: Focus groups with parents of children aged 0-11 years. White Rose Research. 2019. Available from: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/153139/
Duijster, D., De Jong-Lenters, M., Verrips, E. and Van Lovern, C. Establishing oral health promoting behaviours in children – parents’ views on barriers, facilitators and professional support: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:157
Kay, E., Vascott, D., Hocking A., Nield, H., Dorr, C. and Barrett, H. A review of approaches for dental practice teams for promoting oral health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2016;44:313-30
Public health guidelines PH49: Behaviour change: Individual approaches. 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph49
Pine, C.M., Adair, P.M., Burnside, G. et al. Dental RECUR Randomized Trial to Prevent Caries Recurrence in Children. Journal of Dental Research. 2020; 99:168-174.
Gray-Burrows, K., Day, P.F., Marshman, Z., Aliakbari, E., Prady, S.L. and McEachan, R.R.C. Using intervention mapping to develop a home-based parental supervised toothbrushing intervention for young children. Implementation Science. 2016;11:61
Tull, K., Gray-Burrows, K. A., Bhatti, A., Owen, J., Rutter, L., Zoltie, T., Purdy, J., Giles, E., Paige, C. & Patel, M. and Day, P.F. “Strong Teeth”—a study protocol for an early-phase feasibility trial of a complex oral health intervention delivered by dental teams to parents of young children. Pilot Feasibility Studies. 2019;5:
Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions. London, England: MRC. 2006. Available from: https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance
Bhatti, A., Gray-Burrows, K.A., Giles, E., Rutter, L., Purdy, J., Zoltie, T., Pavitt, S. Marshman, Z., West, R. and Day, P.F. “Strong Teeth” – The acceptability of an early-phase feasibility trial of an oral health intervention delivered by dental teams to parents of young children. BMC Oral Health, submitted.
Lancaster, G.A., Dodd, S. and Williamson, P.R. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2004;10:307-312
Mahoney, S., Bryant, M., Sahota, P. and Barber, S. Dietary intake in the early years and its relationship to BMI in a bi-ethnic group: the Born in Bradford 1000 study. Public Health Nutrition. 2018; DOI:10.1017/S1368980018000654.
Health and Social Care Information Centre. Child Dental Health Survey 2013, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 2015. Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/ catalogue/PUB17137
Pitts, N.B., Evans, D.J., and Pine, C.M. British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) diagnostic criteria for caries prevalence surveys-1996/97. Community Dental Health. 1997;14:6-9.
Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. 1964. J Am Dent Association. 1964;68:7–13.
Zeedyk, M.S., Longbottom C. and Pitts, N.B. Tooth-brushing practices of parents and toddlers: a study of home-based videotaped sessions. Caries Research. 2005;1:27–33.
R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), pp. 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
NHS Digital. NHS Dental Statistics for England 2019-2020, biannual report. NHS Digital. 2020. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-dental-statistics/2019-20-biannual-report
Salomon-Ibarra, C.C., Ravaghi, V., Hill K., Jones C.M., Landes, D.P. and Morris, A.J. Low rates of dental attendance by the age of one and inequality between local government administrative areas in England. Community and Dental Health. 2019;36:22-26
Smith, P.A. and Freeman, R. Remembering and repeating childhood dental treatment experiences: parents, their children, and barriers to dental care. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2009;20:50–58.
Lally, P., Wardle, J. and Gardner B. Experiences of habit formation: a qualitative study. Psychology, Health and Medicine. 2011;16:484-9.
Office for National Statistics. Birth Characteristics in England and Wales: 2018. 2019. Available from : https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales/2018
Pine, C.M., Adair, P.M., Nicoll, A.D., Burnside, G., Petersen, P.E., Beighton, D., and Whelton, H. International comparisons of health inequalities in childhood dental caries. Community Dental Health. 2014;21:121-30.
Wilson, M. and Morgan, M. A survey of children's toothbrushing habits in Wales: Are parents following the guidelines? Journal of Health Visitors. 2016;4:95– 9.
Harris, R., Gamboa, A., Dailey, Y. and Ashcroft, A. One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006540.pub2.
Habibian, M., Roberts, G., Lawson, M., Stevenson, R. and Harris S. Dietary habits and dental health over the first 18 months of life. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 2001;29:239– 246
Schwartz, C., Issanchou, S. & Nicklaus, S. Developmental changes in the acceptance of the five basic tastes in the first year of life. British Journal of Nutrition. 2009;102:1375-85.
Armitage, C.J., Walsh, T., Mooney, J., Tierney, J. and Callery, P. Proof of concept trial for a new theory-based intervention to promote child and adult behavior change. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2019;43:80-87.
Levine, R.S., Nugent, Z.J., Rudolf, M.C.J. and Sahota, P. Dietary patterns, toothbrushing habits and caries experience of schoolchildren in West Yorkshire, England. Community Dental Health. 2007;24:82–87.
Eldridge S.M., Chan C.L., Campbell M.J., Bond C.M., Hopewell S. and Thabane L. 2016. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. British Medical Journal, 355, i5239
Hoffmann T.C., Glasziou P.P., Boutron I., Milne R., Perera R., Moher D., Altman D.G., Barbour V., Macdonald H., Johnston M. and Lamb S.E. 2014. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. British Medical Journal;1687.
“Strong Teeth” resources. https://www.dentalcare.co.uk/en-gb/strong-teeth-strong-kids Accessed 30/09/2020
“Strong Teeth” protocol paper. https://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40814-019-0483-9#Ack1 Accessed 30/09/2020
NIHR Applied Research Collaborations Yorkshire and Humber. arc-yh.nihr.ac.uk Accessed 30/09/2020

SupplementaryItem1StrongTeethQuestionnaire.docx
Supplementary Item 1 – “Strong Teeth” Self-Report Questionnaire

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
22 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
17 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
14 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
12 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
14 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
10 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
27 Oct, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited by journal
27 Oct, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

"Strong Teeth" – an Early-phase Study to Assess the Feasibility of an Oral Health Intervention Delivered by Dental Teams to Parents of Young Children

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Aims & Objectives

Additional secondary objectives24 included:

Methods

Study design

Participants

Intervention

Data collection

1) First visit – consent and baseline (BL).

2) Second Visit – two-week follow-up (2WFU)

3) Third visit – Two-month follow-up (2MFU)

4) Dyads who completed the study were invited to participate in the qualitative evaluation of the study, via a semi –structured interview26.

Data Analysis

Results

Inter-Examiner Reliability

Recruitment and Retention

Demographics

Feasibility of Data Collection and Intervention Delivery

Intervention Outcomes

Self-Reported Toothbrushing Behaviours

Dietary Habits

Plaque Scores

Toothbrushing Duration

Harms

Discussion

Recruitment and Retention

Sample

Feasibility of delivery

Intervention Outcomes

Self-reported toothbrushing behaviours

Dietary Habits

Plaque Scores

Toothbrushing Duration

Limitations

Conclusion

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate:

Consent for publication:

Availability of data and materials:

Competing Interests:

Funding:

Authors’ contributions:

Acknowledgements:

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1

Additional secondary objectives²⁴ included:

4) Dyads who completed the study were invited to participate in the qualitative evaluation of the study, via a semi –structured interview²⁶.