Gerald McKenna

Supplemental Table S1 shows assessment of oral health variables across studies

Supplemental Table S3 the multivariable hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between oral health indicators and risk of liver cancer in the HPFU, NHS and WHI cohorts by smoking status

Supplemental Table S2 shows the search terms used for the meta-analyses

Supplemental Table S4 shows the sensitivity analysis for the meta-analysis of periodontal disease and number of missing teeth with liver cancer risk

Supplemental Table S5 shows the sensitivity analysis of the effect of omitting one study at a time from the meta-analysis

Objective: (i) to map responsibilities in the provision of oral healthcare for older adults in long‐term care settings (LTCs), (ii) to examine how coordination processes are described, (iii) to analyse how these responsibilities and coordination processes are distributed across professional groups, (iv) to synthesise these findings into a conceptual oral healthcare pathway for LTCs. Background: Poor oral health remains prevalent among dependent older adults in LTCs worldwide, partly due to poorly coordinated oral healthcare delivery. Although strengthening interprofessional collaboration is essential, how it is structured in oral healthcare is unclear. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute method. Multiple databases were searched for studies addressing responsibilities and coordination processes in oral healthcare provision in LTCs. Data were extracted using a standardised form and analysed iteratively. Results: Thirty‐six studies were included. Responsibility domains were organised into two stages: (i) assessment and decision‐making, and (ii) care provision and treatment. These domains were linked by coordination processes, including co‐development activities and knowledge sharing. Across both stages, operational leadership and structured referral pathways supported alignment across professional groups. Patterns of responsibility distribution highlighted the area of involvement across professional groups. Organisation‐level enablers including (i) governance, (ii) resources, and (iii) structured education were reported to support the operation of structured oral healthcare pathways. Conclusion: Oral healthcare in LTCs was conceptualised as an iterative pathway of interdependent responsibilities. Implementing this pathway requires clear role specification, structured coordination, and organisational support, particularly where responsibilities are shared across professional groups.

Background/Objectives: Occlusal analysis plays a key role in restorative and prosthodontic treatment, influencing diagnosis, treatment planning, and long-term outcomes. This narrative review provides an overview of conventional and digital methods for occlusal analysis and their clinical applications. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant publications on conventional and digital occlusal analysis. The retrieved literature was reviewed and synthesized narratively. Results: Conventional methods, including articulating paper, shimstock foil, films, sprays, and waxes, remain widely used because of their simplicity and accessibility but are limited by subjective interpretation and the inability to quantify occlusal forces. Digital technologies, including T-Scan, OccluSense, Accura, intraoral scanners, virtual articulators, and jaw-tracking systems, provide objective information on occlusal contacts, force distribution, timing, and mandibular movements. However, their use may be limited by cost, technical requirements, and operator training. Conclusions: Conventional methods remain valuable in daily clinical practice, while digital technologies provide objective data that can enhance occlusal assessment and treatment planning. As digital workflows continue to evolve, structured training and standardized clinical protocols will be important for their successful integration into clinical practice.