Data sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database, UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Medline. There were no date limits or language restriction.
Study selection: Systematic reviews and controlled trials (randomised or quasi-randomised) assessing reductions in dental plaque levels and/or gingival bleeding (gingivitis) and comparing health education/health promotion interventions that did not involve clinical professional input or the use of pharmacological interventions, such as antiplaque agents were included. Studies involving only special groups, such as orthodontic or medically compromised patients or assessing only denture plaque, were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis: A range of data were extracted from systematic reviews and trials, quality assessment was undertaken, and a qualitative overview of the findings was provided.
Results: Twenty-six potentially relevant studies were identified. Six reports of five systematic reviews and 13 trials were discussed: four studies were not assessed as one was published in Polish and three could not be located.A wide range of educational and behavioural interventions were considered. These did not generally include clinical interventions and social or environmental approaches. The reviews have a number of limitations so their conclusions should be viewed with a degree of caution. However, the majority of studies achieved short-term reductions in plaque and gingival bleeding. Precise estimates of the improvement are difficult to assess because of the range and diversity of outcome measures used. The results of two meta-analyses indicate a reduction in plaque levels of 32-37%. Of 13 recently published trials evaluating educational interventions, five were set in schools, four focused on adults either in a clinical or workplace setting, three targeted older people, and one, infants. The design quality of the trials was variable. Allocation concealment was clearly described in two trials only, but blind outcome assessment was described in most of the trials and so were dropout rates. Other problems included a lack of controls, use of single blinding and relatively short follow-up. Positive effects on plaque and/or bleeding outcomes were seen in eight studies with no difference in five studies, of which only two employed a control group. Nevertheless, for the two trials that compared various approaches, reductions in plaque and gingival bleeding were generally observed in all groups over the trial period. None of the studies produced a negative effect. Although all the studies evaluated educational interventions, there was no clear indication that any particular type or style of educational approach was more effective than any other.
Conclusions: Reductions in plaque and gingival bleeding were seen in the short term in the majority of studies reviewed. The clinical and public health significance of these changes is, however, questionable. Future studies should use longer follow-up periods to assess whether short-term beneficial changes are sustained. Other forms of oral health promotion require better quality evaluation if they are to be used to improve periodontal health.