1. Disease is multifactorial in nature; difficult to identify one particular cause

 a. Host factors

(1) Immunity to disease/natural resistance

(2) Heredity

(3) Age, gender, race

(4) Physical or morphologic factors

b. Agent factors

(1) Biologic—microbiologic

(2) Chemical—poisons, dosage levels

(3) Physical—environmental exposure

c. Environment factors

(1) Physical—geography and climate

(2) Biologic—animal hosts and vectors

(3) Social —socioeconomic, education, nutrition

2. All factors must be present to be sufficient cause for disease

3. Interplay of these factors is ongoing: to affect the disease, attack at the weakest link

Some Terms

1. Epidemic—a disease of significantly greater prevalence than normal; more than the expected number of cases; a disease that spreads rapidly through a demographic segment of a population

2. Endemic—continuing problem involving normal disease prevalence; the expected number of cases; indigenous to a population or geographic area

3. Pandemic—occurring throughout the population of a country, people, or the world

4. Mortality—death

5. Morbidity—disease

6. Rate—a numerical ratio in which the number of actual occurrences appears as the numerator and number of possible occurrences appears as the denominator, often used in compilation of data concerning the prevalence and incidence of events; measure of time is an intrinsic part of the denominator.

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. Use Multiple Control Groups: Employing different control groups can help identify and account for potential biases.

3. Stratify Analyses: Stratifying analyses based on relevant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities) can help to control for confounding factors.

4. Conduct Sensitivity Analyses: Performing sensitivity analyses can help assess how robust the findings are to different assumptions about the data.

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.

Factors Considered for Prescribing Fluoride Tablets

Child's Age:

• Different age groups require different dosages.
• Children older than 4 years may receive lozenges or chewable tablets, while those younger than 4 are typically prescribed liquid fluoride drops.

Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water:

• The fluoride level in the child's drinking water is crucial.
• If the fluoride concentration is less than 1 part per million (ppm), systemic fluoride supplementation is recommended.

Risk of Dental Caries:

• Children at higher risk for dental decay may need additional fluoride supplementation.
• Regular dental assessments help determine the need for fluoride.

Overall Health and Dietary Needs:

• Consideration of the child's overall health and any dietary restrictions that may affect fluoride intake.

Recommended Doses of Fluoride Tablets

For Children Aged 6 Months to 4 Years:

• Liquid drops are typically prescribed in doses of 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 mg of fluoride ion.

For Children Aged 4 Years and Older:

• Chewable tablets or lozenges are recommended, usually at doses of 0.5 mg to 1 mg of fluoride ion.

Adjustments Based on Water Fluoride Levels:

• Doses may be adjusted based on the fluoride content in the child's drinking water to ensure adequate protection against dental caries.

Duration of Supplementation:

• Fluoride supplementation is generally continued until the child reaches 16 years of age, depending on their fluoride exposure and dental health status.

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

Case-Control Study and Cohort Study are two types of epidemiological studies commonly used in dental research to identify potential risk factors and understand the causality of diseases or conditions.

1. Case-Control Study:

A case-control study is a retrospective analytical study design in which researchers start with a group of patients who already have the condition of interest (the cases) and a group of patients without the condition (the controls) and then work backward to determine if the cases and controls have different exposures to potential risk factors. It is often used when the condition is relatively rare, when it takes a long time to develop, or when it is difficult to follow individuals over time.

In a case-control study, the cases are selected from a population that already has the disease or condition being studied. The controls are selected from the same population but do not have the disease. The researchers then compare the two groups to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of exposure to a particular risk factor.

Example in Dentistry:
Suppose we want to investigate whether there is a link between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease. A case-control study might be set up as follows:

- Cases: Patients with a diagnosis of periodontal disease.
- Controls: Patients without a diagnosis of periodontal disease but otherwise similar to the cases (same age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.).
- Exposure of Interest: Cardiovascular disease.

The researchers would collect data on the medical and dental histories of both groups, looking for a history of cardiovascular disease. They would compare the proportion of cases with a history of cardiovascular disease to the proportion of controls with the same history. If a significantly higher proportion of cases have a history of cardiovascular disease, this suggests that there may be an association between periodontal disease and cardiovascular disease. However, because the study is retrospective, it does not prove that periodontal disease causes cardiovascular disease. It merely suggests that the two are associated.

Advanatages:
- Efficient for studying rare diseases.
- Relatively quick and inexpensive.
- Can be used to identify multiple risk factors for a condition.
- Useful for generating hypotheses for further research.

Disadvantages:
- Can be prone to selection and recall bias.
- Cannot determine the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome.
- Cannot calculate the incidence rate or the absolute risk of developing the disease.
- Odds ratios may not accurately reflect the relative risk in the population if the disease is not rare.

2. Cohort Study:

A cohort study is a prospective longitudinal study that follows a group of individuals (the cohort) over time to determine if exposure to specific risk factors is associated with the development of a particular disease or condition. Cohort studies are particularly useful in assessing the risk factors for diseases that take a long time to develop or when the exposure is rare.

In a cohort study, participants are recruited and categorized based on their exposure to a particular risk factor (exposed and non-exposed groups). The researchers then follow these groups over time to see who develops the disease or condition of interest.

Example in Dentistry:
Let's consider the same hypothesis as before, but this time using a cohort study design:

- Cohort: A group of individuals who are initially free of cardiovascular disease, but some have periodontal disease (exposed) and others do not (non-exposed).
- Follow-up: Researchers would follow this cohort over a certain period (e.g., 10 years).
- Outcome Measure: Incidence of new cases of cardiovascular disease.

The researchers would track the incidence of cardiovascular disease in both groups and compare the rates. If the exposed group (those with periodontal disease) has a higher rate of developing cardiovascular disease than the non-exposed group (those without periodontal disease), this would suggest that periodontal disease may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

Advanatges:
- Allows for the calculation of incidence rates.
- Can determine the temporal relationship between exposure and outcome.
- Can be used to study the natural history of a disease.
- Can assess multiple outcomes related to a single exposure.
- Less prone to recall bias since exposure is assessed before the outcome occurs.

Disdvanatges:
- Can be expensive and time-consuming.
- Can be difficult to maintain participant follow-up, leading to loss to follow-up bias.
- Rare outcomes may require large cohorts and long follow-up periods.
- Can be affected by confounding variables if not properly controlled for.

Both case-control and cohort studies are valuable tools in dental research. Case-control studies are retrospective, quicker, and less costly, but may be limited by biases. Cohort studies are prospective, more robust for establishing causal relationships, but are more resource-intensive and require longer follow-up periods. The choice of study design depends on the research question, the availability of resources, and the nature of the disease or condition being studied.