In 1746, Dr. Pierre Fauchard highlighted the importance of regular dental checkups, recommending that individuals consult a knowledgeable dentist two to three times yearly.1 For centuries, that guideline has underpinned preventive oral care, guiding practitioners and patients alike. Yet current debates urge us to examine recall intervals more critically. Dr. Derek Richards, editor of Evidence-based Dentistry, insists we need stronger empirical data to determine how often patients should be seen based on their unique risk factors and oral health profiles.2
A landmark study by Dr. W. V. Giannobile, published in the Journal of Dental Research, has catalyzed this conversation by stratifying patients into risk categories.3 His data show that low-risk adults—those without smoking habits, systemic diseases, or genetic susceptibility markers—experience equivalent rates of tooth retention whether they attend annual or biannual appointments. Conversely, individuals classified as high risk—such as current or former smokers, diabetic patients, or those with specific genetic variants—achieve significantly better periodontal outcomes when monitored more frequently.
Despite these promising findings, some experts warn against a universal one-size-fits-all recommendation. Critics emphasize that recall intervals should reflect comprehensive evaluations of oral hygiene behaviors, dietary practices, socioeconomic status, and access to care. Clinical Guideline 19 from the United Kingdom’s National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care offers a structured five-step process for customizing dental visits.4 By incorporating demographic, behavioral, and clinical indicators, clinicians can tailor schedules—from quarterly visits for those at highest risk to annual checkups for patients whose oral health remains stable.
The debate over checkup frequency transcends academic curiosity; it has profound implications for public health policy and individual well-being. Policymakers and insurance providers must recognize that optimal recall schedules depend on risk stratification and resource allocation. Patients, meanwhile, benefit when care plans reflect personalized assessments, avoiding the hazard of under-monitoring.
Dr. Giannobile frames his findings not as rigid mandates but as a call to develop individualized treatment pathways. He advises that patients work with their dental team to identify a recall frequency aligned with their risk profiles and lifestyles. A meticulous non-smoker with excellent home-care routines may thrive with a single annual visit, whereas a patient prone to periodontal inflammation may require more frequent oversight.
Moving forward, the dental community must integrate practical risk evaluation with patient education, digital monitoring tools, and dynamic scheduling systems. By fostering collaborative decision-making and leveraging evidence-based frameworks, such as Clinical Guideline 19, practitioners can deliver more effective preventive care that conserves resources while enhancing oral health outcomes. Tailoring dental visits to each person’s unique journey promises a future where prevention truly meets precision.
1. Fauchard P. Le Chirurgien Dentiste, ou Traité des Dents. Paris: Jean-Paul Briasson, 1746.
2. Richards D. Are risk-based dental recalls risky? Evid Based Dent 2018;19(4):989. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401353
3. Giannobile WV, Braun TM, Caplis AK, Doucette-Stamm L, Duff GW, Kornman KS. Patient stratification for preventive care in dentistry. J Dent Res 2013;92(8):694-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513492336
4. National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care. Dental Recall: Recall Interval between Routine Dental Examinations, NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 19. London: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care, 2004.