Objectives: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine if children born with cleft lip and/or palate are at increased risk of psychological and peer difficulties, and if so, which difficulties they develop. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for English language studies published between January 2005 and January 2022 which investigated the psychological outcomes and peer function of children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate. Outcomes included internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, externalizing problems, such as hyperactivity, conduct disorders, self-concept including self-image and self-esteem, peer problems, resilience, coping, and overall psychological function. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis to compare the outcomes for children born with a cleft and those without. Results: In total 41 studies met inclusion criteria, with 9 included in the meta-analysis. Children born with a cleft appear to have similar psychological outcomes compared to normative controls when using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. There are some minor differences between self-report and parent report, with parents generally reporting that their child with a cleft has increased emotional, conduct, and hyperactivity problems. The small differences between the study cohort and control cohorts are unlikely to imply any differences on a clinical level. Conclusions: Overall psychological outcomes appear to be similar between children born with a cleft and the nonaffected population, however, some symptoms such as anxiety and depression appear higher in children with cleft lip and/or palate.

To evaluate oral cancer-related screening practices of Oral Health Professionals (OHPs - dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and oral health therapists) practising in Victoria, Australia. A 36-item survey was distributed to 3343 OHPs. Items included socio-demographic and work-related characteristics; self-assessed knowledge of oral cancer; perceived level of confidence in discussing oral health behaviors with patients; oral cancer screening practices; and self-evaluated need for additional training on screening procedures for oral cancer. A total of 380 OHPs responded this survey, achieving an overall response rate of 9.4%. Forty-five were excluded from further analysis. Of these 335 OHP, 72% were dentists; (n = 241); either GDP or Dental Specialists; 13.7% (n = 46) were dental hygienists; 12.2% (n = 41) were oral health therapists, and the remaining 2.1% (n = 7) were dental therapists. While the majority (95.2%) agreed that oral cancer screening should be routinely performed, in actual practice around half (51.4%) screened all their patients. Another 12.8% “Very rarely” conducted screening examinations. The probability of routinely conducting an oral cancer screening was explored utilising Logistic Regression Analysis. Four variables remained statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Results indicate that the likelihood of conducting an oral cancer screening rose with increasing levels of OHPs’ confidence in oral cancer-related knowledge (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.09–1.67) and with higher levels of confidence in discussing oral hygiene practices with patients (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.03–1.52). Results also showed that dental specialists were less likely to perform oral cancer screening examinations compared with other OHPs (OR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07–0.52) and the likelihood of performing an oral cancer screening decreased when the “patient complained of a problem” (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.44). Only half the study sample performed oral cancer screening examinations for all of their patients. This study provides evidence of the need for further oral cancer-related education and screening training for OHPs, which is vital to enhance oral cancer prevention and early detection.

It is unclear how well self-rated oral health (SROH) reflects actual oral health status in the rural Australian population. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the clinically assessed oral health status and SROH of adults living in rural Australia. The data were from 574 participants who took part in the Crossroads II cross-sectional study. Three trained and calibrated dentists evaluated the oral health status of participants based on WHO criteria. SROH was assessed with the question ‘Overall, how would you rate the health of your teeth and gums?’, with a score ranging from excellent = 5 to poor = 1. A logistic regression analysis (LRA) was performed, allowing us to assess factors associated with SROH. The mean age of participants was 59.2 years (SD 16.3), and 55.3% were female. The key results from the LRA show poorer SROH in those with more missing teeth (OR = 1.05; 95% CI; 1.01–1.08), more decayed teeth (OR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11–1.46), and more significant clinical attachment loss of periodontal tissue (6mm or more) (OR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.29–5.38). This study found an association between negative SROH and clinical indicators used to measure poor oral health status, suggesting that self-rated oral health is an indicator of oral health status. When planning dental healthcare programs, self-reported oral health should be considered a proxy measure for oral health status.

Background: Dental practitioners are known to experience a high level of stress, but little is known about the mental health of Australian dental practitioners. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of mental health conditions among Australian dental practitioners.Methods: A cross sectional survey of 1483 Australian dental practitioners was carried out from October to December 2021. Participants reported aspects of mental health including depression, anxiety disorder, burnout (Sydney Burnout Measure) and psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and General Health Questionnaire 12).Results: Self‐reported psychological distress was high, with 32.0% rated as having moderate or severe psychological distress and 59.4% a high likelihood of minor (or more severe) psychological distress. One in four participants (24.8%) were classified as likely to be experiencing burnout, with 25.9% reporting ever having a diagnosis of depression, 11.4% a current diagnosis of depression, 23.1% ever having a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and 12.9% a current diagnosis of anxiety disorder.Conclusion: Australian dental practitioners reported a high burden of psychological distress, burnout and mental health issues, suggesting a need for education and programmes to support their mental health and wellbeing. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.

Introduction: To investigate factors associated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts amongst Australian dental practitioners.Methods: A self‐reported online survey of 1474 registered dental practitioners in Australia was conducted from October to December 2021. Participants reported thoughts of suicide in the preceding 12 months, prior to the preceding 12 months and prior suicide attempts.Results: Overall, 17.6% reported thoughts of suicide in the preceding 12 months, 31.4% prior to the preceding 12 months, and 5.6% reported ever having made a suicide attempt. In multivariate models, the odds of suicidal ideation in the preceding 12 months were higher in dental practitioners who were male (OR = 2.01), had a current diagnosis of depression (OR = 1.62), were experiencing moderate (OR = 2.76) or severe psychological distress (OR = 3.58), had self‐reported illicit substance use (OR = 2.06) or had previous self‐reported suicide attempts (OR = 3.02). Younger dental practitioners had more than twice the odds of recent suicidal ideation than those aged 61+ years, with higher resilience having decreasing odds of suicidal ideation.Limitations: This study did not address help seeking behaviours directly related to suicidal ideation, so it is not clear how many participants were actively seeking mental health support. The response rate was low and results may be subject to responder biases, with practitioners experiencing depression, stress and burnout being more willing to participate.Conclusion: These finding highlight a high prevalence of suicidal ideation amongst Australian dental practitioners. It is important to continue to monitor their mental health and develop tailored programs to provide essential interventions and supports.

Background: This study explored the oral health promotion practices of Australian community mental health professionals working with people living with severe mental illness (SMI). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed to all Community Rehabilitation and Support Workers (CRSWs) working at Neami National (n = 471), an Australian community mental health service. The validated questionnaire assessed participants’ self-rated oral health knowledge and confidence (7 questions); their perceived barriers (9 questions) and attitudes (5 questions) to oral health promotion; and their oral health promotion practices (7 questions). Differences in responses between groups were analysed using Chi-square, Fisher’s exact and Mann–Whitney U tests. Logistic Regression Analysis served to explore the probability of providing oral health support to mental health consumers. Results: A total of 141 CRSWs were included in this study, achieving a response rate of 30 percent. Roughly two-fifths (39.0%) of participants had oral health training in the previous 12-months. The majority of CRSWs (89.3%) believed (‘Agreed’ or ‘Strongly agreed’) that mental health support workers have a role to play in promoting oral health. However, less than half (44.0%) of CRSWs practiced oral health promotion activities when working with mental health consumers. When asked about barriers to promoting oral health, ‘lack of consumer interest’ was the most prevalent issue. CRSWs who had oral health training were over three-times (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.25–9.83, p = 0.017) more likely to provide oral health support. Results showed the provision of oral health support was most strongly associated with self-rated knowledge and confidence (OR 4.089, 95% CI 1.629–10.263, p = 0.003) and attitudes to oral health promotion (OR 3.906, 95% CI 1.77–8.65, p = 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that mental health support workers who have more positive attitudes to oral health promotion and who have higher self-rated oral health knowledge and confidence are more likely to provide oral health support in their professional role. Training for community mental health professionals is essential to build confidence and skills to promote oral health for mental health consumers.