NEET MDS Lessons
Public Health Dentistry
The null hypothesis is a fundamental concept in scientific research,
including dentistry, which serves as a starting point for conducting experiments
or studies. It is a statement that assumes there is no relationship, difference,
or effect between the variables being studied. The null hypothesis is often
denoted as H₀.
In dentistry, researchers may formulate a null hypothesis to test the efficacy
of a new treatment, the relationship between oral health and systemic
conditions, or the prevalence of dental diseases. The purpose of the null
hypothesis is to provide a baseline against which the results of the study can
be compared to determine if the observed effects are statistically significant
or not.
Here are some common applications of the null hypothesis in dentistry:
1. Comparing Dental Treatments: Researchers might formulate a
null hypothesis that a new treatment is no more effective than the standard
treatment. For example, "There is no significant difference in the reduction of
dental caries between the use of fluoride toothpaste and a new, alternative
dental gel."
2. Oral Health and Systemic Conditions: A null hypothesis could
be used to test if there is no correlation between oral health and systemic
diseases such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. For instance, "There is no
significant relationship between periodontal disease and the incidence of
stroke."
3. Dental Materials: Studies might use a null hypothesis to
assess the equivalence of different materials used in dental restorations. For
example, "There is no difference in the longevity of composite resin fillings
compared to amalgam fillings."
4. Dental Procedures: Researchers may compare the effectiveness
of new surgical techniques with traditional ones. The null hypothesis would be
that the new procedure does not result in better patient outcomes. For instance,
"There is no significant difference in post-operative pain between
laser-assisted versus traditional scalpel gum surgery."
5. Epidemiological Studies: In studies examining the prevalence
of dental diseases, the null hypothesis might state that there is no difference
in the rate of cavities between different population groups or regions. For
example, "There is no significant difference in the incidence of dental caries
between children who consume fluoridated water and those who do not."
6. Dental Education: Null hypotheses can be used to evaluate
the impact of new educational methods or interventions on dental student
performance. For instance, "There is no significant improvement in the manual
dexterity skills of dental students using virtual reality training compared to
traditional methods."
7. Oral Hygiene Products: Researchers might hypothesize that a
new toothpaste does not offer any additional benefits over existing products.
The null hypothesis would be that "There is no significant difference in plaque
reduction between the new toothpaste and the market leader."
To test the null hypothesis, researchers conduct statistical analyses on the
data collected from their studies. If the results indicate that the null
hypothesis is likely to be true (usually determined by a p-value greater than
the chosen significance level, such as 0.05), they fail to reject it. However,
if the results suggest that the null hypothesis is unlikely to be true,
researchers reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis,
which posits a relationship, difference, or effect between the variables.
In each of these applications, the null hypothesis is essential for maintaining
a rigorous scientific approach to dental research. It helps to minimize the risk
of confirmation bias and ensures that conclusions are drawn from objective
evidence rather than assumptions or expectations.
EPIDEMIOLOGY
Epidemiology is the study of the Distribution and determinants of disease frequency in Humans.
Epidemiology— study of health and disease in human populations and how these states are influenced by the environment and ways of living; concerned with factors and conditions that determine the occurrence and distribution of health. disease, defects. disability and deaths among individuals
Epidemiology, in conjunction with the statistical and research methods used, focuses on comparison between groups or defined populations
Characteristics of epidemiology:
1. Groups rather than individuals are studied
2. Disease is multifactorial; host-agent-environment relationship becomes critical
3. A disease state depends on exposure to a specific agent, strength of the agent. susceptibility of the host, and environmental conditions
4. Factors
- Host: age, race, ethnic background, physiologic state, gender, culture
- Agent: chemical, microbial, physical or mechanical irritants, parasitic, viral or bacterial
- Environment: climate or physical environment, food sources, socioeconomic conditions
5. Interaction among factors affects disease or health status
Uses of epidemiology
I. Study of patterns among groups
2. Collecting data to describe normal biologic processes
3. Understanding the natural history of disease
4. Testing hypotheses for prevention and control of disease through special studies in populations
5. Planning and evaluating health care services
6. Studying of non disease entities such as suicide or accidents
7. Measuring the distribution of diseases in populations
8. Identifying risk factors and determinants of disease
Plaque index (PlI)
0 = No plaque in the gingival area.
1 = A thin film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent to the area of the tooth. The plaque is not readily visible, but is recognized by running a periodontal probe across the tooth surface.
2 = Moderate accumulation of plaque on the gingival margin, within the gingival pocket, and/or adjacent to the tooth surface, which can be observed visually.
3 = Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or adjacent to the tooth surface.
Gingival index (GI)
0 = Healthy gingiva.
1= Mild inflammation: characterized by a slight change in color, edema. No bleeding observed on gentle probing.
2 = Moderate inflammation: characterized by redness, edema, and glazing. Bleeding on probing observed.
3 = Severe inflammation: characterized by marked redness and edema. Ulceration with a tendency toward spontaneous bleeding.
Modified gingival index (MGI)
0 = Absence of inflammation.
1 = Mild inflammation: characterized by a slight change in texture of any portion of, but not the entire marginal or papillary gingival unit.
2 = Mild inflammation: criteria as above, but involving the entire marginal or papillary gingival unit.
3 = Moderate inflammation: characterized by glazing, redness, edema, and/or hypertrophy of the marginal or papillary gingival unit.
4 = Severe inflammation: marked redness, edema, and/or hypertrophy of the marginal or papillary gingival unit, spontaneous bleeding, or ulceration.
Community periodontal index (CPI)
0 = Healthy gingiva.
1 = Bleeding observed after gentle probing or by visualization.
2 = Calculus felt during probing, but all of the black area of the probe remains visible (3.5-5.5 mm from ball tip).
3 = Pocket 4 or 5 mm (gingival margin situated on black area of probe, approximately 3.5-5.5 mm from the probe tip).
4 = Pocket > 6 mm (black area of probe is not visible).
Periodontal screening and recording (PSR)
0 = Healthy gingiva. Colored area of the probe remains visible, and no evidence of calculus or defective margins is detected.
1 = Colored area of the probe remains visible and no evidence of calculus or defective margins is detected, but bleeding on probing is noted.
2 = Colored area of the probe remains visible and calculus or defective margins is detected.
3 = Colored area of the probe remains partly visible (probe depth between 3.5-5.5 mm).
4 = Colored area of the probe completely disappears (probe depth > 5.5 mm).
Berkson's Bias is a type of selection bias that occurs in case-control studies, particularly when the cases and controls are selected from a hospital or clinical setting. It arises when the selection of cases (individuals with the disease) and controls (individuals without the disease) is influenced by the presence of other conditions or factors, leading to a distortion in the association between exposure and outcome.
Key Features of Berkson's Bias
-
Hospital-Based Selection: Berkson's Bias typically occurs in studies where both cases and controls are drawn from the same hospital or clinical setting. This can lead to a situation where the controls are not representative of the general population.
-
Association with Other Conditions: Individuals who are hospitalized may have multiple health issues or risk factors that are not present in the general population. This can create a misleading association between the exposure being studied and the disease outcome.
-
Underestimation or Overestimation of Risk: Because the controls may have different health profiles compared to the general population, the odds ratio calculated in the study may be biased. This can lead to either an overestimation or underestimation of the true association between the exposure and the disease.
Example of Berkson's Bias
Consider a study investigating the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, where both cases (lung cancer patients) and controls (patients without lung cancer) are selected from a hospital. If the controls are patients with other diseases that are also related to smoking (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), this could lead to Berkson's Bias. The controls may have a higher prevalence of smoking than the general population, which could distort the perceived association between smoking and lung cancer.
Implications of Berkson's Bias
- Misleading Conclusions: Berkson's Bias can lead researchers to draw incorrect conclusions about the relationship between exposures and outcomes, which can affect public health recommendations and clinical practices.
- Generalizability Issues: Findings from studies affected by Berkson's Bias may not be generalizable to the broader population, limiting the applicability of the results.
Mitigating Berkson's Bias
To reduce the risk of Berkson's Bias in research, researchers can:
-
Select Controls from the General Population: Instead of selecting controls from a hospital, researchers can use population-based controls to ensure a more representative sample.
-
Use Multiple Control Groups: Employing different control groups can help identify and account for potential biases.
-
Stratify Analyses: Stratifying analyses based on relevant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities) can help to control for confounding factors.
-
Conduct Sensitivity Analyses: Performing sensitivity analyses can help assess how robust the findings are to different assumptions about the data.
Decayed-Missing-Filled Index ( DMF ) which was introduced by Klein, Palmer and Knutson in 1938 and modified by WHO:
1. DMF teeth index (DMFT) which measures the prevalence of dental caries/Teeth.
2. DMF surfaces index (DMFS) which measures the severity of dental caries.
The components are:
D component:
Used to describe (Decayed teeth) which include:
1. Carious tooth.
2. Filled tooth with recurrent decay.
3. Only the root are left.
4. Defect filling with caries.
5. Temporary filling.
6. Filled tooth surface with other surface decayed
M component:
Used to describe (Missing teeth due to caries) other cases should be excluded these are:
1. Tooth that extracted for reasons other than caries should be excluded, which include:
a- Orthodontic treatment.
b- Impaction.
c- Periodontal disease.
2. Unerupted teeth.
3. Congenitally missing.
4. Avulsion teeth due to trauma or accident.
F component:
Used to describe (Filled teeth due to caries).
Teeth were considered filled without decay when one or more permanent restorations were present and there was no secondary (recurrent) caries or other area of the tooth with primary caries.
A tooth with a crown placed because of previous decay was recorded in this category.
Teeth restored for reason other than dental caries should be excluded, which include:
1. Trauma (fracture).
2. Hypoplasia (cosmatic purposes).
3. Bridge abutment (retention).
4. Seal a root canal due to trauma.
5. Fissure sealant.
6. Preventive filling.
1. A tooth is considered to be erupted when just the cusp tip of the occlusal surface or incisor edge is exposed.
The excluded teeth in the DMF index are:
a. Supernumerary teeth.
b. The third molar according to Klein, Palmer and Knutson only.
2. Limitations - DMF index can be invalid in older adults or in children because index can overestimate caries record by cases other than dental caries.
1. DMFT: a. A tooth may have several restorations but it counted as one tooth, F. b. A tooth may have restoration on one surface and caries on the other, it should be counted as D . c. No tooth must be counted more than once, D M F or sound.
2. DMFS: Each tooth was recorded scored as 4 surfaces for anterior teeth and 5 surfaces for posterior teeth. a. Retained root was recorded as 4 D for anterior teeth, 5 D for posterior teeth. b. Missing tooth was recorded as 4 M for anterior teeth, 5 M for posterior teeth. c. Tooth with crown was recorded as 4 F for anterior teeth, 5 F for posterior teeth.
Calculation of DMFT \ DMFS:
1. For individual
DMF = D + M + F
2. For population
Minimum score = Zero
Primary teeth index:
1. dmft / dmfs Maximum scores: dmft = 20 , dmfs = 88
2. deft / defs, which was introduced by Gruebbel in 1944: d- decayed tooth. e- decayed tooth indicated for extraction . f- filled tooth.
3. dft / dfs: In which the missing teeth are ignored, because in children it is difficult to make sure whether the missing tooth was exfoliated or extracted due to caries or due to serial extraction.
Mixed dentition:
Each child is given a separate index, one for permanent teeth and another for primary teeth. Information from the dental caries indices can be derived to show the:
1. Number of persons affected by dental caries (%).
2. Number of surfaces and teeth with past and present dental caries (DMFT / dmft - DMFS / dmfs).
3. Number of teeth that need treatment, missing due to caries, and have been treated ( DT/dt, MT/mt, FT/f t).
Here are some common types of bias encountered in public health dentistry, along with their implications:
1. Selection Bias
Description: This occurs when the individuals included in a study are not representative of the larger population. This can happen due to non-random sampling methods or when certain groups are more likely to be included than others.
Implications:
- If a study on dental care access only includes patients from a specific clinic, the results may not be generalizable to the broader community.
- Selection bias can lead to over- or underestimation of the prevalence of dental diseases or the effectiveness of interventions.
2. Information Bias
Description: This type of bias arises from inaccuracies in the data collected, whether through measurement errors, misclassification, or recall bias.
Implications:
- Recall Bias: Patients may not accurately remember their dental history or behaviors, leading to incorrect data. For example, individuals may underestimate their sugar intake when reporting dietary habits.
- Misclassification: If dental conditions are misdiagnosed or misreported, it can skew the results of a study assessing the effectiveness of a treatment.
3. Observer Bias
Description: This occurs when the researcher’s expectations or knowledge influence the data collection or interpretation process.
Implications:
- If a dentist conducting a study on a new treatment is aware of which patients received the treatment versus a placebo, their assessment of outcomes may be biased.
- Observer bias can lead to inflated estimates of treatment effectiveness or misinterpretation of results.
4. Confounding Bias
Description: Confounding occurs when an outside variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome, leading to a false association between them.
Implications:
- For example, if a study finds that individuals with poor oral hygiene have higher rates of cardiovascular disease, it may be confounded by lifestyle factors such as smoking or diet, which are related to both oral health and cardiovascular health.
- Failing to control for confounding variables can lead to misleading conclusions about the relationship between dental practices and health outcomes.
5. Publication Bias
Description: This bias occurs when studies with positive or significant results are more likely to be published than those with negative or inconclusive results.
Implications:
- If only studies showing the effectiveness of a new dental intervention are published, the overall understanding of its efficacy may be skewed.
- Publication bias can lead to an overestimation of the benefits of certain treatments or interventions in the literature.
6. Survivorship Bias
Description: This bias occurs when only those who have "survived" a particular process are considered, ignoring those who did not.
Implications:
- In dental research, if a study only includes patients who completed a treatment program, it may overlook those who dropped out due to adverse effects or lack of effectiveness, leading to an overly positive assessment of the treatment.
7. Attrition Bias
Description: This occurs when participants drop out of a study over time, and the reasons for their dropout are related to the treatment or outcome.
Implications:
- If patients with poor outcomes are more likely to drop out of a study evaluating a dental intervention, the final results may show a more favorable outcome than is truly the case.
Addressing Bias in Public Health Dentistry
To minimize bias in public health dentistry research, several strategies can be employed:
- Random Sampling: Use random sampling methods to ensure that the sample is representative of the population.
- Blinding: Implement blinding techniques to reduce observer bias, where researchers and participants are unaware of group assignments.
- Standardized Data Collection: Use standardized protocols for data collection to minimize information bias.
- Statistical Control: Employ statistical methods to control for confounding variables in the analysis.
- Transparency in Reporting: Encourage the publication of all research findings, regardless of the results, to combat publication bias.
Terms
Health—state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being where basic human needs are met. not merely the absence of disease or infirmity; free from disease or pain
Public health — science and art of preventing disease. prolonging life, and promoting physical and mental health and efficiency through organized community efforts
1. Public health is concerned with the aggregate health of a group, a community, a state, a nation. or a group of nations
2. Public health is people’s health
3. Concerned with four broad areas
a. Lifestyle and behavior
b. The environment
c. Human biology
d. The organization of health programs and systems
Dental public health—science and art of preventing and controlling dental diseases and promoting dental health through organized community efforts; that form of dental practice that serves the community as a patient rather than the individual; concerned with the dental education of the public, with applied dental research, and with the administration of group dental care programs. as well as the prevention and control of dental diseases on a community basis
Community health—same as public health full range of health services, environmental and personal, including major activities such as health education of the public and the social context of life as it affects the community; efforts that are organized to promote and restore the health and quality of life of the people
Community dental health services are directed to ward developing, reinforcing, and enhancing the oral health status of people either as individuals or collectively as groups and communities