OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias.  No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 4 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 4 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 March 2019), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 4 March 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (five were cluster-RCTs) with 20,192 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Trials assessed follow-up periods of three to eight months. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two were based in India and one in the USA. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, two trials to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases, cost effectiveness or adverse events.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP for the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 9 March 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which involved individuals with clinically diagnosed untreated periodontitis. Trials compared SRP with systemic antibiotics versus SRP alone/placebo, or with other systemic antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 trials conducted worldwide involving 2664 adult participants. 14 studies were at low, 8 at high, and the remaining 23 at unclear overall risk of bias. Seven trials did not contribute data to the analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the 10 comparisons which reported long-term follow-up (≥ 1 year). None of the studies reported data on antimicrobial resistance and patient-reported quality of life changes. Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -16.20%, 95% CI -25.87 to -6.53; 1 study, 44 participants); clinical attachment level (CAL) (MD -0.47 mm, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.05; 2 studies, 389 participants); probing pocket depth (PD) (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; 2 studies, 389 participants); and percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) (MD -8.06%, 95% CI -14.26 to -1.85; 2 studies, 389 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for closed pockets and BOP showed a minimally important clinical difference (MICD) favouring amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP. Metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -12.20%, 95% CI -29.23 to 4.83; 1 study, 22 participants); CAL (MD -1.12 mm, 95% CI -2.24 to 0; 3 studies, 71 participants); PD (MD -1.11 mm, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.61; 2 studies, 47 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -6.90%, 95% CI -22.10 to 8.30; 1 study, 22 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for CAL and PD showed an MICD favouring the MTZ + SRP group. Azithromycin + SRP versus SRP for chronic/aggressive periodontitis: we found no evidence of a difference in percentage of closed pockets (MD 2.50%, 95% CI -10.19 to 15.19; 1 study, 40 participants); CAL (MD -0.59 mm, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.08; 2 studies, 110 participants); PD (MD -0.77 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.79; 2 studies, 110 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -1.28%, 95% CI -4.32 to 1.76; 2 studies, 110 participants) (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP versus SRP for chronic periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 21 participants for CAL (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.71); PD (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.37); and BOP (MD 0%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Doxycycline + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 22 participants for CAL (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.11); and PD (MD -1.00 mm, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.22) was of very low certainty, with the doxycycline + SRP group showing an MICD in PD only. Tetracycline + SRP versus SRP for aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL for the tetracycline group (MD -2.30 mm, 95% CI -2.50 to -2.10; 1 study, 26 participants). Clindamycin + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 21 participants of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.00); and PD (MD -1.80 mm, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.13) favouring clindamycin + SRP. Doxycycline + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: there was very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 27 participants of a difference in long-term CAL (MD 1.10 mm, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84); and PD (MD 1.00 mm, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.70) favouring metronidazole + SRP. Clindamycin + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 26 participants for CAL (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.95); and PD (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.78) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Clindamycin + SRP versus doxycycline + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 23 participants for CAL (MD -0.90 mm, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.18); and PD (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.02) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Most trials testing amoxicillin, metronidazole, and azithromycin reported adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mild gastrointestinal disturbances, and metallic taste. No serious adverse events were reported.