S M Lahti1, H W Hausen, E Widström, A Eerola. 1. Department of Community Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, University of Oulu, Finland. satu.lahti@oulu.fi
Abstract
AIM: To review the frequency of routine annual dental examinations for children in Finland and to make recommendations for appropriate examination intervals for children and adolescents. METHOD: The National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health in Finland appointed an expert group to prepare a review. RESULTS: According to the literature, examination intervals for individuals with low caries risk can be extended to 1.5-2.0 years without jeopardising their oral health. If implemented, this would lead to a saving of 15% in treatment and examination times for children. Although there is no accurate measure for identifying high-risk individuals, a considerable proportion of low-risk children can be identified fairly accurately. CONCLUSIONS: The expert group recommended prolonging the average examination intervals to 1.5-2.0 years, taking into account the risk of each individual, the local distribution of oral health problems and cost-effective use of resources. Part of the savings could be redirected to children with high levels of dental need and/or at risk of dropping out from the oral health services.
AIM: To review the frequency of routine annual dental examinations for children in Finland and to make recommendations for appropriate examination intervals for children and adolescents. METHOD: The National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health in Finland appointed an expert group to prepare a review. RESULTS: According to the literature, examination intervals for individuals with low caries risk can be extended to 1.5-2.0 years without jeopardising their oral health. If implemented, this would lead to a saving of 15% in treatment and examination times for children. Although there is no accurate measure for identifying high-risk individuals, a considerable proportion of low-risk children can be identified fairly accurately. CONCLUSIONS: The expert group recommended prolonging the average examination intervals to 1.5-2.0 years, taking into account the risk of each individual, the local distribution of oral health problems and cost-effective use of resources. Part of the savings could be redirected to children with high levels of dental need and/or at risk of dropping out from the oral health services.
Authors: Jorma I Virtanen; Leeni T Berntsson; Eero Lahelma; Lennart Köhler; Heikki Murtomaa Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Theodorus G Mettes; Wil J M van der Sanden; Michel Wensing; Richard P T M Grol; Alphons J M Plasschaert Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Patrick A Fee; Philip Riley; Helen V Worthington; Janet E Clarkson; Dwayne Boyers; Paul V Beirne Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-10-14