Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

Background The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check‐up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check‐ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate in recent decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, six‐monthly dental check‐ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2007. Objectives To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example six months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check‐up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish. To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check‐up at the same fixed recall interval. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. Search methods The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 27 September 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 September 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. We did not apply any restrictions regarding language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria of the review, extracted