• General information
  • About EADPH
  • Objectives
  • Constitution
  • Working groups
  • Board members
  • Newsletter archive
  • EADPH logo downlaod
  • Contact
• Membership
  • Information
  • Corporate Members
  • Membership Subsidy
• Congresses
  • Current congress
  • Past congresses
    • 16th congress
    • 15th congress
    • 14th congress
    • 12th congress
    • 11th congress
  • Abstracts
  • Other congresses
• Abstract submission
  • Travel grant guidelines
• Career opportunities
• Links
• Home

Abstract submission

Call for Abstracts (Please read carefully, link to the online form at the bottom of this page)

GUIDANCE ON SUBMITTING ABSTRACTS TO THE EADPH/BASCD MEETING IN LONDON, 15 – 17 NOVEMBER 2012

                

Important: Please read these guidelines before submitting your abstract.
The link to the submission form is at the bottom of this page!

You are invited to submit an abstract of research on any topic relevant to dental public health for presentation at the EADPH/BASCD meeting in London from 15 - 17 November 2012. Abstracts should relate to 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 or BASCD to submit an abstract. Abstracts are to be submitted electronically to the e-mail address given in the abstract form. The deadline for receipt of abstracts is 15 February 2012, for those who wish to be considered for a travel grant, and 15 April 2012 for all others (read the guidelines). You are only permitted to present one abstract but you may co-author others. The submission of an abstract carries with it the obligation to register and to present it during the conference.

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 therefore include data as both numbers and percentages and not just percentages and follow the accepted principles of scientific research.  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.

Text Box

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.
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, ethical approval and statistical tests used should 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) and be based on the observed results.
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 percent sign (%) and the number preceding it (i.e.  22% is correct but 22 % is incorrect).  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 26 lines and be written in one paragraph, without any indents to the left of the page.

SELECTION OF ABSTRACTS FOR PRESENTATION AT THE CONFERENCE

Abstracts will be reviewed by a 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 15 April 2012 to presenting authors who have applied for a travel grant and to all other presenting authors by 15 June 2012.   In the event of any questions, please E-mail Dr Colwyn Jones.

Please ensure that the presenting author’s e-mail address 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  any inquiries e-mailed to you by the scientific committee.  If you change your e-mail address after submitting an abstract please e-mail Dr Colwyn Jones  (Colwyn.Jones@nhs.net) to inform him.

 

ABSTRACT ASSESSMENT FORM

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. Is the sampling technique clearly described?

8. Was the sample selected randomly?

9. Is the sample representative of the population studied?

10. If appropriate, are the use of control group(s), ethical approval and statistical tests mentioned.

11. Is the size of all groups given?

12. Is the response rate given?

13. Are drop outs accounted for?

14. Do the conclusions reflect the observed results?

15. 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?

16. Is the English adequate?

17. Are there any other factors which need to be clarified with the authors?

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

EXAMPLE OF A SATISFACTORY ABSTRACT

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. Ethical approval and parental consent was obtained for this study. 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

 

>> CONTINUE TO ABSTRACT SUBMISSION FORM <<