Clinical instruments and methods for assessing physical oral health: A systematic review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical instruments and methods for assessing physical oral health: A systematic review

AU - Pauli, L-K

AU - Aarabi, G

AU - Kriston, L

AU - Jansen, A

AU - Heydecke, G

AU - Reissmann, D R

N1 - © 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2017/8

Y1 - 2017/8

N2 - OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at exploring available clinical instruments and methods for assessing physical oral health, and at identifying those with sufficient diagnostic performance.METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase and MEDLINE. Identified instruments and methods were critically appraised, and quality of diagnostic performance was rated by two independent reviewers as A (sufficient diagnostic performance), B (either sufficient reliability or validity) or C (insufficient quality, or empirical results unsatisfactory and/or inconsistent). For all A-rated instruments and methods, an in-depth literature search was conducted to supplement and verify their effectiveness and accuracy.RESULTS: A total of 141 instruments and methods were identified. Only 12 methods with sufficient diagnostic performance could be rated as A, 72 were rated as B, and 34 received a C-rating. Further 23 instruments and methods could not be rated due to lack of available information on diagnostic performance. Of all A-rated instruments, six were designed for tooth structure, two for periodontium, one for endodontium and three for temporomandibular joints and muscles.CONCLUSION: Even though some instruments and methods exhibited good to excellent reliability and validity and can be recommended for research and clinical practice, they do not allow assessing all components of physical oral health. There is a need to identify and define standard instruments, and for components of physical oral health where methods with sufficient diagnostic performance are lacking, further research is required.

AB - OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at exploring available clinical instruments and methods for assessing physical oral health, and at identifying those with sufficient diagnostic performance.METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase and MEDLINE. Identified instruments and methods were critically appraised, and quality of diagnostic performance was rated by two independent reviewers as A (sufficient diagnostic performance), B (either sufficient reliability or validity) or C (insufficient quality, or empirical results unsatisfactory and/or inconsistent). For all A-rated instruments and methods, an in-depth literature search was conducted to supplement and verify their effectiveness and accuracy.RESULTS: A total of 141 instruments and methods were identified. Only 12 methods with sufficient diagnostic performance could be rated as A, 72 were rated as B, and 34 received a C-rating. Further 23 instruments and methods could not be rated due to lack of available information on diagnostic performance. Of all A-rated instruments, six were designed for tooth structure, two for periodontium, one for endodontium and three for temporomandibular joints and muscles.CONCLUSION: Even though some instruments and methods exhibited good to excellent reliability and validity and can be recommended for research and clinical practice, they do not allow assessing all components of physical oral health. There is a need to identify and define standard instruments, and for components of physical oral health where methods with sufficient diagnostic performance are lacking, further research is required.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/cdoe.12296

DO - 10.1111/cdoe.12296

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 28370209

VL - 45

SP - 337

EP - 347

JO - COMMUNITY DENT ORAL

JF - COMMUNITY DENT ORAL

SN - 0301-5661

IS - 4

ER -