Implementation and impact of a dental preventive intervention conducted within a health promotion program on health inequalities: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this retrospective survey was to evaluate after one year, the conditions and impacts of a dental sealant intervention conducted in New Caledonia, within a health promotion program. A greater or at least equivalent quality and impact of the intervention was expected for children living in socially deprived regions with the greatest health needs.
METHODS: The study population was the schoolchildren, aged 6 years in 2016, who benefited from the dental sealant program (n = 2532). The study sample was randomly selected in 2017 from that population (n = 550). The children's dental status was evaluated at school in 2017 and compared with that recorded in 2016 during the sealant intervention allowing the calculation of the retention rates and one-year carious increment on first permanent molars. Socio-demographic variables (gender, public/private school) and conditions of sealant placement (school/dental office, presence of a dental assistant) were recorded. The carious increment was explained using a mixed multiple random-effects regression. A mediation analysis was conducted to assess the respective contributions of the retention rates and the region of origin on caries increment.
RESULTS: The participation rate was very high (89%) and on average, children had 83% of their dental sealants present after one year, 31% fully and 52% partially present. Caries increment varied depending on the sealant retention rate as well as on the region (North, South, Islands). The mediation analysis showed that living in a deprived area (The Islands) was a strong determinant for high caries increment particularly when the retention rates were low.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high participation rate and acceptable effectiveness as measured with the one-year retention rates, for a fissure sealant intervention conducted in real-life conditions and integrated in a large health promotion program. Nevertheless, the intervention was not effective enough to totally balance the influence of health determinants, especially in socially deprived sectors characterized by greater dental needs.

Introduction

Oral diseases remain a major health problem in both developing and developed countries [1]. Indeed, the prevalence of untreated oral conditions is high worldwide. Low-income and socially- or medically-disadvantaged populations experience higher rates of chronic diseases and this gradient is particularly apparent for oral diseases [2].

Since oral health inequalities come across the whole social body according to a gradient, the challenge is to take into account that gradient when evaluating public health interventions. An efficient intervention might have no effect on health inequalities if all socioeconomic groups benefit equally. And it may even increase health inequalities if the wealthiest groups benefit more [3]. Indeed, the more affluent communities are often in a better position to implement health promotion programs not only for financial reasons but also because of environmental factors or manpower resources. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence concerning the equity effects of health-related interventions. Thus, studies assessing the impact of universal interventions on children with various social or environmental backgrounds are needed to identify the differential effects as well as the impact of the implementation conditions [4].

New Caledonia (NC) (245,580 inhabitants) is a French Oceanian overseas territory, with extensive administrative autonomy. The population is a mix of 40% Kanak (indigenous population of New Caledonia), 30% White European (Caledonians and Metropolitans), 10% Polynesian (Wallisians) and South-East Asian or Vanuatu people. The population varies depending on the region, with more Kanak in the North and the Islands and more Polynesians, white Europeans and Asians in the South. Three quarters of the population live in the South, where the economic activity is concentrated, and 39% of the population lives in Nouméa city. New Caledonia is one of the richest countries in the South Pacific area but there are strong social and economic disparities between regions (North, Islands, South) [5]. As an example, the proportion of households having a computer at home varied in 2014 from 37% in the Islands, to 53% in the North and 76% in the South.

A study conducted in 2011–2012 has evaluated the dental and weight status of 6-, 9- and 12-yr-old children in NC. The prevalence of untreated dental caries was almost 60% among 6- and 9-yr-olds and about 50% among 12-yr-olds. Caries experience was unevenly distributed in the population, with one third of 12-yr-olds having more than five untreated carious teeth. The number of carious lesions was related to their unfavourable lifestyle, deprived social status and lack of preventive dental care [6]. The prevalence of overweight and obesity was high and greatly increasing between the ages of 6 (respectively 10.8% and 7.8%) and 12 (respectively 22.2% and 20.5%), with one third of the 12-yr-olds having an excess of abdominal adiposity. Geographical location (region), ethnicity, tooth-brushing frequency and masticatory function were significant risk factors for oral diseases and overweight/obesity [7]. People with the lowest levels of resources also showed difficulties attending for dental care despite the public medical/dental coverage existing in NC.

That study highlighted the need for new strategies aimed at improving children’s oral and general health and at reducing inequalities. An alternative approach to traditional healthcare was thus chosen in collaboration with NC local populations and government, based on the principles of Oral Health Promotion (OHP) [8] with the development of—1—health education in schools in order to promote the adoption of health promoting behaviours [9], 2—preventive interventions, such as the implementation of tooth brushing at school, for the child population, 3—a reorientation of dental services towards more effective and preventive interventions. The OHP program (“Mes dents, Ma santé”) was developed in connection with other health programs related to the prevention of other chronic diseases such as rheumatic heart disease or obesity. The common risk factor approach was thus privileged in order to address risk factors common to those chronic conditions within the context of the local environment [10].

Within this framework, the dental sealant program, which has existed since 2009, was renewed in order to ensure its quality and that all 6-yr-old schoolchildren can benefit from it. Indeed, dental sealants have been shown to be an effective preventive intervention when evaluated in real-life school conditions [11,12]. The program is now coordinated by the NC health agency in connection with regional educational and health authorities, health-fund bodies and the dental profession. A training course and a standardized protocol were implemented in 2014 in order to ensure the quality and relevance of sealant applications by dentists, in schools or public dental services.

The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate after one year, the dental sealant program conducted in 2016 among 6-yr-old children in NC, by measuring the participation and retention rates [13]. The aim was also to evaluate the influence of the quality of the intervention (retention rates) on the one-year caries increment, while taking into account initial dental status, conditions of sealant placement and social determinants such as the region of origin. The objectives of this study are positioned within the general aim of taking into account oral health inequalities when assessing public health interventions. Indeed, to ensure that public health interventions do not increase health inequalities, a greater or at least equivalent quality and health outcome of those interventions are expected in socially deprived sectors with greatest health needs compared to more favoured areas [3].

Population and methods

Population and study sample

The study population was the group of schoolchildren aged 6 in 2016 who benefited from the dental sealant program; the program concerned 4329 children, was effectively offered to 3774 (87%) children (351 in the Islands, 908 in the North and 2515 in the South); 2532 children participated (89% in NC, 92% in the Islands, 88% in the North and 89% in the South).

The number of children to be selected in the 2017 study from that population was calculated (n = 500) to ensure the precision of the retention rates’ estimates (rate = 50%, precision 5%) and to highlight an effect size above 0.5 when considering variations between regions. This number was also calculated following the criteria used in multidimensional and mediation analyses [14-16]. Children were randomly selected using a computerised, clustered sampling method with a probability proportional to the regions’ population.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Study approvals were obtained from the NC educational and health institutions. Schools were approached through local educational authorities. Data were recorded in a file registered within the French ethical committee for data management (CNIL -Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté, No. kpP1390145R). Information letters and consent forms were sent to the parents. The children whose parents returned written consent were examined. In order to prevent negative impact on the participation rate in the OHP program, it was decided not to collect individual social information or behavioural data at this stage.

Fissure sealant program

The age of 6 was chosen because school is compulsory from this age and it allowed the sealant to be applied on first permanent molars as soon as they erupted. The recommendation for the dentists is to seal all non-carious or with only very early enamel lesions (ICDAS1) erupted first permanent molars whatever the caries risk [17]. Caries risk is very high in NC and it was considered not feasible nor pertinent to differentiate children according to caries risk. Photopolymerised resin sealants (3M Cleanpro) were applied with cotton rolls for saliva isolation [18,19]. Sealants were applied either at school in a mobile dental surgery or in public dental offices. Thirty general dental practitioners performed the 2016 dental examinations and applied the fissure sealants. They were recruited by the NC health agency within public regional health services and through the council of private dentists. The practitioners were assigned to one or several schools, depending on feasibility criteria that were mostly dependent on geographical locations. Children from the same school were examined by the same practitioner. Prior to the start of the program, all the practitioners underwent a training course consisting of a presentation of the NC OHP program, the sealant application protocol, illustrations with clinical situations and training about the data collection process.

Study variables

The children's dental status was evaluated in 2017 at school. Radiographs were not used. Six general dental practitioners performed the children’s examinations, after having been calibrated through a training course described in a previous study [6]. The presence of dental sealants was recorded. A sealant was considered as fully or partially present using standardised criteria [19]. For each child, the number of teeth with partially remaining sealant and fully-intact sealant was recorded. The clinical information collected in 2017 was connected to the 2016 individual data. The number of sealants applied in 2016 was compared with the number of sealants present during the 2017 examination. This allowed the calculation of three retention rates for each child; the complete retention rate (based on fully-present sealants), the partial retention rate (partially present) and the global retention rate (fully or partially present).

Dental caries were diagnosed at the dentinal threshold level (ICDAS4-6) for deciduous and permanent teeth [20]. The dental status (DT first molars: number of carious first permanent molars) recorded in 2016 during the sealant intervention was compared with that of the 2017 dental examination. This allowed the calculation of the one-year carious increment: ΔDT1st molars = DT first molars in 2017—DT first molars in 2016.

Socio-demographic variables (gender, region, public or private school) were recorded from the school registers. The setting where dental sealants were applied in 2016 (school vs dental office) and the presence of a dental assistant during the sealing procedure were also retrieved for each child.

Data analysis

Data errors were corrected before analysis. The statistical analyses were performed using the Stata statistical software package, version 13.

Retention rates were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The influence of initial dental status, conditions of sealant placement and the child’s profile (gender, school, region) was explored using bivariate analysis.

Variations in the distribution of the study variables (retention rates, initial and 2017 dental status, condition of sealant placement, sociodemographic profile, caries increment) depending on the region (an ecological variable representing a major social determinant in NC) were also explored using bivariate analysis. Chi-squared, ANOVA or Student t-tests were used depending on the variables being considered. For the main variables, when p-value was significant, a Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test was performed to take into account multiple comparisons.

A mixed multiple random-effects regression was used to evaluate the influence of the quality of the intervention (retention rates), initial dental status, conditions of sealant placement and the region of origin on the one-year caries increment. Mixed models were used including the examiner parameter as random effect [21-24]. The caries increment was not normally distributed (even with a normality transformation), and thus the 0-inflated Poisson model was used. The interactions between factors were tested.

We conducted a mediation analysis to assess the respective contributions of the retention rate and the region on caries increment. A mediation proportion was estimated, indicating how much of the whole increment value provided by an independent variable (the region) can be explained by the indirect path in which changes in this independent variable drives a change in the mediator (retention rate), and changes in the mediator then affect outcome [25,26]. We performed multilevel mediation analysis with other explanatory variables and examiner effect being integrated. Three models were conducted depending on the region being considered as the reference (A—South, B–Islands, C–North). The global and complete retention rates were considered separately. Results were summarized using a graph giving the mediation proportion and significance of the mediation analysis associations.

Results

Of the children selected in the 2017 sample, 459 children participated and were examined. Among the participants, 48% were girls, 84% attended public schools, 9% lived in the Islands, 29% in the North and 62% in the South.

On average, children still had 83% (95%CI: 79.9%-86.2%) of their dental sealants after one year; 31.1% (27.8%-34.5%) were still fully present and 51.9% (48.6%-55.1%) were partially present. Retention rates did not vary depending on the children gender, type of school (private vs public) or the conditions of sealant placement (dental office vs school, presence of a dental assistant). Dental status in 2016, as well as the number of sealants applied in 2016, were not associated with retention rates. Retention rates appeared to be slightly better in the North and lower in the South (Table 1 and Fig 1).

Table 1

Description of the study variables, for the whole sample and per region.

	Total n = 459	North n = 132	Islands n = 43	South n = 284	P
RETENTION RATES
Partial retention rate	0.52 (0.35) *	0.59 (0.38)	0.45 (0.32)	0.50 (0.34)	0.004!
Complete retention rate	0.31 (0.36)	0.30 (0.36)	0.42 (0.37)	0.30 (0.36)	NS
Global retention rate	0.83 (0.35)	0.89 (0.31)	0.87 (0.45)	0.80 (0.34)	0.02!
CONDITIONS: SEALANT APPLICATION
% of sealants placed at school	69.1%	44.7%	25.6%	87.0%	<0.001
Presence of a dental assistant (n = 444)	84.9%	64.7%	73.2%	95.1%	<0.001
SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
% in private schools	15.9%	19.7%	41.9%	10.2%	P<0001
% of girls	48.0%	40.2%	55.8%	50.4%	NS
INITIAL DENTAL STATUS
Number of First molars present in 2016	3.63 (0.81)	3.64 (0.76)	3.47 (0.88)	3.64 (0.82)	NS
% of children with caries in 2016£	63.6%	69.7%	79.0%	58.5%	0.007
Number of carious first molars in 2016	0.19 (0.54)	0.20 (0.57)	0.14 (0.41)	0.19 (0.53)	NS
Number of sealants applied in 2016	3.34 (1.01)	3.41 (0.92)	3.21 (1.06)	3.32 (1.03)	NS
2017 DENTAL STATUS
Number of carious first molars in 2017	0.35 (0.84)	0.32 (0.81)	0.65 (0.90)	0.37 (0.84)	0.06
Number of sealants remaining in 2017	2.82 (1.26)	3.08 (1.23)	2.74 (1.36)	2.72 (1.25)	0.03
% of children with caries in 2017£	63.0%	68.9%	88.4%	56.4%	<0.001
ONE-YEAR CARIES INCREMENT
Caries increment: ΔDT1st molars	0.18 (0.76)	0.12 (0.59)	0.51 (0.83)	0.15 (0.81)	<0.001§

n: number of subjects,

* mean (standard deviation) for the proportion of sealants remaining per child,

p: p value for Chi square test or ANOVA.

£ permanent and temporary teeth,

! the South region differed from the North region (Tukey-Cramer).

§ the Islands differed from the North and from the South (Tukey-Cramer).

Fig 1

Complete and global retention rates and caries increment (ΔDT1st molars) depending on the region and setting of sealant placement.

In 2016, the mean number of sealed teeth was 3.34 (1.01) with 39 children (8%) having had one tooth sealed and 295 (64%) four teeth sealed. It was found that 31% of the children benefited from the sealant program within schools and a dental assistant was present in 84.9% of the cases.

The South showed a very high rate of sealant application at school with an assistant. In 2016, caries prevalence was high with non-treated carious lesions in eight children out of ten in the Islands (Table 1). In 2017, all children had their 4 first permanent molars erupted with no filling being recorded. It was observed that 63.6% of the children (58.6%-67.7%) had untreated carious lesions on permanent or temporary teeth. The 2017 caries prevalence varied depending on the region. In total, 168 first molars had carious lesions with a mean number of decayed teeth per child of 0.35 (0.84). The mean number of sealants on first permanent molars was 2.82 (1.26) with only 25 children having no sealants and 43% with all their molars sealed.

Carious increment ΔDT1st molars was 0.18 (0.76) and varied depending on the region with a much higher caries increment in the Islands (Table 1). The multidimensional model showed that caries increment varied significantly depending on the global sealant retention rate as well as the region (Table 2). Children living in the South and North and children with a high retention rate experienced less new carious lesions. The children’s sociodemographic profile, modalities of sealant application as well as initial dental status were not significant factors. There was a significant examiner effect that was managed by using a mixed multiple random-effects regression. The same findings were nearly obtained when considering the complete retention rate (Regression Coefficient: -0.54, 95% CI: -0.74; -0.34, p<0.0001).

Table 2

Significant regression coefficients derived from the mixed multiple random-effects regression with one-year carious increment (ΔDT1st molars) as dependent variable.

	ΔDT1st molars
	RC	95% CI	p
Region
North	-0.30	(-0.61; -0.01)	0.05
South	-0.38	(-0.71; -0.05)	0.02
Islands = reference
Global retention	-0.28	(-0.48; -0.08)	0.005

RC: Regression coefficient, 95%CI: Confidence Interval, p: p value,

Explanatory variables integrated in the model: Child’s gender, type of school (private vs public), region (Islands, North, South), dental status in 2016 (number of first molars and % with carious lesions), conditions of sealant placement (school vs dental office, with or without dental assistant), examiner effect, p = 0.002

A multilevel mediation analysis was performed to evaluate if the retention rate was a mediator of the effect of the region on caries increment. The direct association between the region and caries increment remained significant only in Model B. In models A and C, the retention rate was linked to the region. The modalities of sealant application significantly influenced that relationship for the three models. For Model B, the influence of the region increased when retention rate was considered as a mediator. This means that living in the Islands was a strong determinant for high caries increment particularly when the retention rate was low. For Models A and C, the retention rate was not a mediator for the relationship between the region and caries increment. The mediator effect was lower for the complete retention rate (35%) as compared to the global retention rate (38%) (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Mediation analysis of caries increment (Model B).

Tested mediator: Global retention rate. Independent variable: Region (Model B: the Islands compared to the North and South). Baseline risk co-variates: gender, type of school (private vs public), dental status in 2016 (number of first molars and % with carious lesions), conditions of sealant placement (school vs dental office, with or without dental assistant), examiner effect (as random effect). Step 1: The first step in our mediational analysis was the finding that belonging to the Islands region as compared to the North and South regions had a measurable impact on caries increment after accounting for baseline risk covariates. Step 2: Second, we checked if the retention rate (mediator) was related with the region, after accounting for baseline risk covariates. Step 3: Finally, a multilinear regression (mixed model) calculated the influence of the region on the tested mediator (retention rate). Subsequently, we jointly calculated the influence of the mediator and the direct effect of the independent variable on caries increment after accounting for baseline risk covariates. This last step shows that retention rate partially mediates [38%. P = for the average causal mediation effect (ACME)] the original effect of the region on caries increment and consequently remains directly associated with caries increment in an independent manner. The mediator (retention rate) and the main independent variable (Region) are assessed as binary variables.

Discussion

The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the quality and the impact of the dental sealant program on oral health inequalities. Findings showed that the participation rate was very high and that on average, children had approximately 80% of their dental sealants present after one year, 30% being fully present and 50% partially present. The aim was also to evaluate the impact of retention rates, social determinants and other explanatory factors on caries increment for first permanent molars. Caries increment varied depending on the retention rates as well as on the region. The mediation analysis showed that living in a more deprived area was a strong determinant for high caries increment particularly when the retention rates were low.

The notion of retention is crucial because the main function of sealants is to form an efficient physical barrier between the enamel surface and the oral environment. Thus, retention rates are used as clinical evaluation criteria to measure effectiveness. The mean retention rate in this study is comparable to global retention rates found in other pragmatic studies that have evaluated the school sealant program [27-29]. However, the mean complete retention rate observed here (30%) was relatively low as compared to other studies with much higher rates (50–70%) [13,30-33]. The high proportion of partially present dental sealants could lower the effectiveness of the program in preventing dental caries development [34]. This low rate could be explained by the age of the children whose first molars were erupting at the time of sealant placement or by the fact that all teeth were sealed and not only teeth at high risk of caries. These rates might also be related to the dentists’ lack of involvement in preventive activities. The NC sealant program has been conducted within the French context where the population benefits from Universal Health/Dental Coverage. But dentists are mainly working in private practices with no (or few in NC) community dental services or the presence of associated professionals such as dental hygienists [35]. Historically, priority has been given to operative care, at the expense of preventive dentistry. Many preventive interventions are not covered by the National Health Insurance system. Dentists thus tend to focus on restorative treatments and their management of carious disease is mainly invasive and curatively driven [36].

The dental sealant intervention is integrated within an oral health promotion plan. Evidence of the effect of educational interventions or multi-component school- and community-based interventions is equivocal [3]. Thus, the evaluation of the impact of the program according to the social situation and oral health needs is very important as public health interventions may increase inequalities in the population. The ‘inverse care law’ states that those most in need of benefiting from preventive interventions are the least likely to receive and benefit from them. Some interventions are successful at improving health across the population but they may increase health inequalities. This can happen when an intervention is of greater benefit to advantaged (lower-risk) groups than to disadvantaged (higher risk) groups [37,38]. Conversely, some interventions may reduce inequalities, if they are of greater benefit to disadvantaged groups. In this study, it was demonstrated that the participation rate was very high whatever the region and that the setting of fissure sealant placement (school vs public dental offices) did not influence the retention rates. The good balance of participation and quality of intervention has been obtained by focusing efforts on ensuring accessibility to the intervention in every place, even the more deprived and isolated ones. In the Islands, caries prevalence was high in 2016 and caries increment was also marked between 2016 and 2017. The mediation analysis showed that having a high retention rate was particularly important for the children in the Islands. Hence, the retention rate was a good intermediate indicator of the effect of the preventive intervention on oral health inequalities, showing that accessible and high-quality interventions are crucial for deprived populations. This is an illustration of the need for proportionate universalism in oral health promotion programs with reinforced resources adapted to the needs of the populations in deprived sectors.

These findings were obtained within a short follow-up period; the calculation of a two-year (or more) caries increment might have led to the measurements of higher impacts. Moreover, it was not possible to make a comparison with a control group as all 6-yr-old children are concerned by the program in NC. Since the Ottawa declaration [8], there has been an expansion of health promotion programs but there is still a need for an evidence-based evaluation of their impact. Randomized Clinical Trials are needed but also other types of studies such as pragmatic studies conducted in real life contexts. Evaluation studies have to be context sensitive to identify what works for whom and to take into account the implementation processes, and the barriers and facilitators to health promotion programs [39]. Health promotion programs are frequently conducted in school environments or in available community settings. Understanding local contexts as socially-complex systems may help adopt better suited approaches for the dissemination and evaluation of oral health promotion programs [40]. In the present study, sealant application procedures and evaluation process were adapted to the local situation. This has limited the quality of the program and evaluation protocol but, at the same time, this study provided invaluable context-sensitive data that helped understand what works and for whom within a pragmatic perspective.

The oral health promotion program (OHP) conducted in NC since 2014 was developed after the identification of oral health needs, but also after their recognition by the population and major local stakeholders [41]. The sealant application program that is part of the OHP program has been put in place within the context of routine practice. Existing intervention practices were identified and improvements were facilitated. The sealant intervention has been supported first because it is an evidence-based intervention with a solid rationale. Moreover, a user-centred approach was privileged and an interdisciplinary team of researchers, political stakeholders together with health providers were involved in the program. The sealant program was thus integrated in the OHP program as the likelihood of adoption and implementation in daily practice was high.

The sealant program was associated with other interventions aimed at modifying other health determinants such as developing a health education program or promoting tooth brushing in nurseries (age 3–6 years) and schools [42]. These interventions will be evaluated progressively as soon as their implementation has been completed [43]. It must be stated that the level of implementation of tooth brushing at school is very promising (85%) with a high involvement of schools in the deprived areas such as the North region where community workers and teachers became highly involved (https://www.ass.nc). An epidemiological survey was conducted in 2019, among a national representative sample of 6-, 9- and 12-yr-old children. This survey will bring more information about the evolution of children’s oral health in NC over the last 5 years and the effect of the OHP program.

Conclusions

This retrospective study of the quality and impact of the fissure sealant program is part of the evaluation process of a larger OHP program. This study showed a high participation rate and acceptable effectiveness as measured with the one-year retention rates, for a fissure sealant intervention conducted in real-life conditions and integrated in a large health promotion program. Nevertheless, even with well-balanced participation and retention rates between regions, the intervention was not effective enough to totally balance the influence of health determinants, especially in socially-deprived sectors characterized by greater dental needs. These results pointed out the issues of generalizing well-proven effective preventive procedures within specific real-life contexts. The results emphasised the need for continuous and targeted training programs for the program actors to help optimize effectiveness. It would have been illusory to think it possible to counterbalance the effects of social determinants on health with one short-term preventive intervention, even if integrated in a larger health promotion program. Nevertheless, the results show that taking into account the social gradient of health when evaluating public health interventions is a major issue. Further studies to evaluate long-term participation, quality and effects of the whole health promotion and education program in NC are needed, as well as cost-effectiveness studies to help support sound future public health decisions.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-35772

Implementation and impact of a dental preventive intervention conducted within a health promotion program on health inequalities: A retrospective study

PLOS ONE

Dear Pr tubert-jeannin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frédéric Denis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"The study is an epidemiological retrospective study with a clinical examination of the children at school. The clinical examination was conducted by calibrated dentists and was limited to a visual observation.

Ethical approvals were obtained from the local educational and health institutions. Schools were approached through local educational authorities. Data were recorded in a file registered within the ethical comity for data management (CNIL N° kpP1390145R). Explanatory letters and consent forms were sent to parents prior to the dental examinations and children whose parents returned written consent were examined."

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: a) One major suggestion is that more input & discussion should be developed to contextualize the sentence

327/328 "the intervention was not effective enough to balance the influence of health determinants in socially deprived sectors characterized by high dental needs"

For example analysis should be more deep and address issues like: what are the alternatives that can be introduced to overcome this situation?

b) it would be useful to implement a revision & proof reading of the text since there are some inconsistencies like

line 55 A formation and a standardized - training instead of formation

line 138 Poisson model a used. - Poisson model was used.

line 151 f the children selected - something is missing

lines 227, 229, 230, 232, 234 - etc "dots" misplaced

line 241 punctuation misplaced

line 280 review syntax and grammar

Reviewer #2: Introduction l.6-7 : The authors mention the challenge : taking into acount oral health inequalities gradient when assessing public health interventions. It is very interesting and original to assess the impact of interventions on health inequalities additionaly to a usual global assessment.

P5 l.58 and followings : this challenge does not appear very clearly in the aim of the study. « The aim was also to appreciate the influence of the quality of the intervention (retention rates) on the one-year caries increment, while taking into account initial dental status, conditions of sealants placement and social determinants such as the region of origin. Indeed, in order to tackle health inequalities, a greater or at least equivalent quality of intervention is expected in socially deprived sectors with highest health needs compared to more favoured areas [3]. »

The number of subjects was properly calculated.

P6 l.78 : By « region size », do you mean « region population » ? Did you make a clusterred sample ?

The statistical analysis has a high quality level (normal distribution checking, consequent use of a 0-inflated Poisson model, interactions testings…) and thus is very trustable.

P8 l. 138 : change « thus 0-inflated Poisson model a used » to « thus a 0-inflated Poisson model was used »

P9 l151 : « f the children selected in the 2017 sample participated ». Something might be missing ?

P9 l54 : « Eighty-three percent (95%CI: 79.9%-86.2%) of the dental sealants were present after one year. Among them, 31.1% (27.8%-34.5%) were totally present and 51.9% (48.6%-55.1%) were partially present. » I would suggest to remove « among them ». You don’t mean 31.1% of 83% ? Right ?

P9 l 159 : « Dental status in 2016, as well as the number of sealants applied in 2016, did

not influence retention rates. » This protocol does not allow to proove causal relationships (« influence »). I’d advise to rather talk about « links » or « associations ».

p9 Fig 1 : Why is the total retention rate lower than the complete retention rate ??? There might be a mistake.

Additionnally, it would maybe be clearer to talk about « full retention rate » and « global retention » rate…

p10 Table 1 :

Iles -> Islands

Partial retention rate : 0.52. Wouldn’t it be better to say 52% ? Do you mean 52% of the children had their sealants partially removed ?

What is the statistical unit ? Or do you mean 52% of the sealants ?

If my unsdersanding is right, I’d suggest the following changes :

P7 l 109 : « For each child, the number of sealants applied in 2016 was compared with the number of sealants present during the 2017 examination. This allowed the calculation of the retention rates; total (totally or partially present), partial (partially present) and complete retention rate (totally present). »

� « For each child, the numbers of partially remaining sealants and full sealants were recorded. The number of sealants applied in 2016 was compared with the numbers of sealants present during the 2017 examination. This allowed the calculation of 3 retention rates for each child; the complete retention rate (based on fully present sealants), the partial retention rate (partially present) and the global retention rate (fully or partially present). »

If my understanding is right, this sentence seems false to me : as the 2016 number of sealants per child was not always the same, the global percentage is not equal to the mean rate.

P9 l54 « Eighty-three percent (95%CI: 79.9%-86.2%) of the dental sealants were present after one year. Among them, 31.1% (27.8%-34.5%) were totally present and 51.9% (48.6%-55.1%) were partially present. »

I would suggest to change this sentence to : « On average, the children had still 83% (95%CI: 79.9%-86.2%) of their dental sealants after one year. Thirty one point one percent (27.8%-34.5%) of their initial sealants were still totally present and 51.9% (48.6%-55.1%) were partially present. »

If you calculate the global percentage, you get 85%,32% and 53%.

P12 Table 2 : The last column is unreadable : numbers are supeimposed.

P13 : What does all the text lines 224-235 stand for ?

Fig 2 : The definition is low and thus the figure is hard to read. Please provide a more readable figure.

P14 l241 : « and that 80% of the dental sealants were present after one year. » Change to « and that on average, the chidren had 80% of their dental sealants present after one year »

P14 l 252 You calculated the mean retention rate per child and not the global retention rate. The global retention rate woylb even be lower. The studies you are comparing to did calculate the global retention rate.

Your method allows an equal weight of each child in your study.

P15 l 282 : « Hence, it was possible in our sample to show that a high total number of sealants made a decisive contribution to caries prevention, particularly in deprived areas. »

On which result do you ground this assertion ? I do not see a statically significant difference about the « number of sealants » in any of your tables or figures. Indeed (Fig 1) the number of sealants applied inislands is lower than un other regions but the difference is not statically significant.

P17 l 327 « Nevertheless, even with well-balanced participation and retention rates between

regions, the intervention was not effective enough to balance the influence of health determinants in socially deprived sectors characterized by high dental needs. »

« Nevertheless, even with well-balanced participation and retention rates between

regions, the intervention was not effective enough to totally balance the influence of health determinants and especially in socially deprived sectors characterized by high dental needs. »

My conclusion :

This study showed that such a global program neither reaches to totally counterbalance other factors (caries increment 0.12-0.51) nor to alleviate the oral health inequalities (caries increment significantly higher in islands).

Additionnally it showed that independant predicting factors of tooth decay increment seem to be region and full sealant retention. Acting on these two factors might enhance the efficiency of such a program.

Cost-effectiveness studies would be needed to support public health decisions.

This study is a valuable contribution in public health as it is assessing a global program in real life condition.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Pr Valerie BERTAUD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Mar 2020

Answer to Editorial comments

Ethics statement

The full name of the “CNIL” comity has been added in the manuscript text and in the ethics statement

Data Availability

The file is available from the Zenodo database (DOI : 10.5281/zenodo.3670886)

English

Editing revision done, from an official translation office

Answer to Reviews comments

Reviewer 1

discussion

More text was added in the discussion, to better contextualize and discuss the sentence “”not effective enough to balance the influence of health determinants”

Revision and Proof reading

The corrections requested from L 55 to L280 has been done

Reviewer 2

Objectives

The objectives of the study have been rewritten to better positioned them within the goal of taking into account OH inequalities when assessing public health interventions

Comments

L138 “region population” and “clustered sampling method” added

L138 “was” added.

L151 New wording : “Of the children selected in 2017, 459 children participated”…

L154 “among them” deleted

L159 : “were associated” replaces “influence”

FiG 1 : “Full/complete” instead of “Total” and “Global” instead of “complete” are now used in the whole document . The figure has also been simplified.

P10 table 1 :

The word Islands is now used

Retention rates : a sentence has been added to the legend “proportion of sealants remaining per child, “

P7 / L109 The sentence proposed by the reviewer has been integrated

P9 / 152 The sentence proposed by the reviewer has been integrated

P12 Table 2 : The table has been repositioned in the word document

Fig 2 : the quality of the figure has been improved

L241 the proposed change has been made ( idem in the abstract)

L252 the reviewer’s comments have been taken into account in the sentence

L282 the sentence was grounded on the mediation analysis. Nevertheless, It has been rewritten to better balance its meaning.

L327 the proposed change has been made

Conclusion :

The need for cost effectiveness studies has been added to the conclusion

5 Mar 2020

Implementation and impact of a dental preventive intervention conducted within a health promotion program on health inequalities: A retrospective study

PONE-D-19-35772R1

Dear Dr. tubert-jeannin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frédéric Denis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-35772R1

Implementation and impact of a dental preventive intervention conducted within a health promotion program on health inequalities: A retrospective study

Dear Dr. tubert-jeannin:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frédéric Denis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE