Abstract submission

Deadline for abstract submission is extended to 28th February 2017!


You are invited to submit an abstract of research ON ANY TOPIC RELEVANT TO DENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH for presentation at the EADPH meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania from 8 to 10 June 2017. Abstracts should report research studies performed by their authors. However, abstracts which describe new methodologies or concepts may be accepted. This should be indicated clearly at the top of the abstract i.e. METHODLOGY and the headings list for research abstracts should not be used.

You do not have to be a member of the EADPH to submit an abstract. However, the registration fee for the meeting is higher for non-members, so it is recommended that you join the association. ALSO PLEASE NOTE THAT TRAVEL GRANTS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO EADPH MEMBERS. THEREFORE WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN EADPH BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR ABSTRACT IF YOU WANT TO APPLY FOR A TRAVEL GRANT.

Abstracts are to be submitted electronically to the e-mail address given in the abstract form. The deadline for receipt of abstracts is 1 December 2016, for those who wish to be considered for a travel grant, and 1 January  2017 for all other abstracts. It is essential that you watch and listen to the video that accompanies this notice and read and follow the guidelines for abstracts, which appear below and on subsequent pages, before you write the abstract.  
In order for delegates to make travel arrangements and if necessary, obtain visas, in good time, the abstract review committee will try to ensure that notices of full or provisional acceptance are sent to delegates by 1 February 2017.  In connection with visas and approval from university departments, please email Professor Alina Puriene, the Chair of the Congress Organising Committee  - info@ eadph2017.org   to request an invitation to attend the EADPH Vilnius congress.
Instructions on how to prepare your abstract, an example of a well completed abstract and the abstract submission form follow:

Instructions on Abstract Preparation and Style
Please follow the following guidelines when preparing your abstract and use the format and style set out below. Authors who have little experience of scientific writing in English are strongly recommended to consult someone proficient in scientific English when preparing the abstract and before they submit it.

General Points
As mentioned above the abstract should generally report some form of research into an aspect of dental public health. It should include data as both numbers and percentages and not just percentages and follow accepted principles of scientific research and the text be no more than 26 lines long. The abstract should be produced using Times New Roman 10 point font throughout.

Title Box
The title should be in bold font and no longer than 12 words. The names of the authors (maximum number 5) should be written in ITALIC CAPITALS and the name of the presenting author should be followed by an asterisk (*). The institution(s) to which the presenter and first author have their affiliation and that/those of any other co-authors, must be written in italics and be followed by the country. Only 3 institutions may be listed, so if the maximum of five authors come from different institutions, it will not be possible to list the institutions of the fourth and fifth authors.
The title must reflect the research presented.

The Text (Maximum of 300 words)
The text of the abstract must be laid out under the headings: Aim(s), Methods, Results, Conclusions. They may be preceded with a very short statement to introduce the abstract if required. This should be no more than one sentence in length.
Aim(s): should be clearly stated.
Methods: should indicate where, when and among whom your data were gathered and give details of sample selection, randomisation and why the sample can or cannot be seen as representative of the population studied. Where applicable control groups, consent, ethical approval and statistical tests used must be mentioned. Detail the response rate(s), give the size of the group or groups and account for any drop outs from the original number(s).
Results: should give the most important findings and always include both numbers and percentages e.g. 71 (50%) were female.
Conclusions: should highlight the most important finding(s), be based on the observed results and start with the words " In the population studied."
Acknowledgements: If appropriate, any funding or other help provided by other people should be indicated under this heading.
e-mail address: Please add your e-mail address at the very end of the text box
For p-values, an italic font should be used for the letter p e.g. p<0.05. Decimals should be separated from whole numbers with a dot (e.g. 30.8) and thousands with a comma (e.g. 1,000). Do not include a space between the percentage sign (%) and the number preceding it (i.e. 22% is correct but 22 % is incorrect). Always include numbers as well as percentages. In general, other than for p values do not present any data to more than one decimal place e.g. 13.1% and not 13.123%
The abstract must be no longer than 300 words/26 lines and be written in one paragraph, without any indents to the left of the page.

Abstracts will be reviewed by the review committee against the criteria set out in the attached abstract assessment form. If corrections or clarifications are necessary, you may be contacted by a member of the committee.
Confirmation of acceptance/rejection will be e-mailed by  1 February 2017 to all presenting authors. In the event of any questions, please email or telephone the Associate Editor and Chair of the Abstract Review Committee, Professor Kenneth Eaton (email: kenneth.a.eaton@btinternet.com tel: 00 44 1233 813585).
Please ensure that the presenting author’s e-mail address, work and evening telephone number are included in the abstract submission form and that they are up to date. Please, be ready to reply immediately to all inquiries e-mailed to you by the scientific committee. If you change your e-mail address after.
Five abstracts will be selected for 15 minute oral presentations.  All other abstracts must be presented as posters followed by a 7 minute oral presentation (5 minutes presentation and 2 minutes for questions).

Details of the lay out of posters and the format for the oral presentations will follow once abstracts have been accepted.

Abstract Assessment Checklist

The abstract review committee use the following checklist when assessing abstracts.  You must also use this checklist before submitting an abstract

  1. Did the abstract report a research topic in dental public health?
  2. Has the title box been completed as detailed in the guidance for preparing abstracts?
  3. Does the title reflect the research that is reported?
  4. Is the abstract laid out under the headings: Aim(s), Methods, Results and Conclusions?
  5. Are the aims clearly stated?
  6. Does the description of methods answer the questions where, when and how?
  7. Have ethics approval and consent of participants been obtained prior to starting the study. If not why not.
  8. Is the sampling technique clearly described?
  9. Was the sample selected randomly? If not why not.
  10. Is the sample representative of the population studied?
  11. If appropriate, are the use of control group(s), and statistical tests mentioned.
  12. Is the size of all groups given?
  13. Is the response rate given?
  14. Are drop outs accounted for?
  15. Do the conclusions reflect the observed results?
  16. Have all the technical requirements e.g. use of italics, no space between 20%, reporting both numbers and percentages and no more than one decimal place been met?
  17. Is the English adequate?
  18. Are there any other factors which need to be clarified with the authors?

Decision: Accept/ Reject/Seek clarification/amendment from the authors.


Caries in primary molars and its impact on the variability of permanent tooth eruption sequences
 D LeClerck (*), S CHAMPION2, E GROSS 2, D BLANC1
1 School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2 Biostatistical Centre, University Grand , Bourganville,  Frenchtown, Utopia.
Aims: In an earlier study it was revealed that a history of caries in the primary molars is associated with an early eruption of their permanent successors (Leclerck et al., 2003). Hence, caries in the primary molars may have an impact on the order in which the permanent teeth erupt (second phase). The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the variability of permanent tooth eruption in Utopian boys and girls, taking into account the (caries) status of the primary molars. Methods: For this purpose data available from the Grosse Zahnmobiel® project were used. In this prospective longitudinal epidemiological survey, data were collected from a representative sample of 4,468 children (born in 1997) and examined yearly (between 7 and 12 years of age) by trained dentist-examiners. Caries experience and tooth eruption were recorded by direct inspection. The University Grand ethics committee approved the study and parental consent was obtained for each subject. Bayesian statistical analyses taking into account the interval censored character of the data were performed. Results: 10,234 (56%) of all examined primary molars were sound (i.e. dmft=0). Between 512 (2.5%) and 14.89 (7.2%) of the first and second primary molars had been extracted due to caries. When both primary molars were sound, the most prevalent eruption order was ‘4-3-5-7’ (first premolar – canine – second premolar – second molar) in the maxilla and ‘3-4-5-7’ in the mandible, in boys as well as in girls. When both maxillary primary molars had been affected by caries (i.e. either decayed, filled or extracted due to caries), the sequences ‘4-5-3-7’ and ‘5-4-3-7’ were  more prevalent whereas sequences ‘3-4-5-7’ and ‘4-3-5-7’ were less prevalent. When both mandibular primary molars were affected by caries, the prevalence of sequences ‘4-3-5-7’, ‘4-3-7-5’ and ‘4-5-3-7’ was increased whereas the prevalence of sequences ‘3-4-5-7’ and ‘3-4-7-5’ was decreased. Conclusions: In conclusion in the study population, a history of caries in the primary molars was associated with an altered order of eruption of canines, premolars and second molars. In many subjects the most desirable eruption sequence was not observed; clinical evaluation and guidance in those cases is very important.

Supported by Nicesmile Corp – Research Grant OT/05/60 University Grand Bourganville, Frenchtown.
e-mail: dleclerck@teethugb.ac.ut

Presenters are asked to bring A4 copies of their poster to the Congress to allow individual delegates to retain a copy.