Dental · Benchmarks · for The Overdue Patient List
Recall intervals and reminders: the evidence
The Cochrane reviews, the NICE guideline, the Helsinki cohort and the dental reminder studies that The Overdue Patient List quotes, with what each one can and can't tell a practice.
Last checked: 26 September 2026
What changes: reviews and guidance are revised from time to time; this page is re-dated when a source changes.
Every figure is labelled published: from a public, primary source, shown exactly as the book's numbers sheet records it, with the source, its publisher, the data year and the date it was read. See the editorial policy.
These are published studies, a UK guideline and an ADA practice-management page, not practice benchmarks. None of them sets a recall interval for any patient; that is the dentist's decision. Read each caveat before quoting a figure.
A Cochrane review (2 trials, 1,736 participants) found little to no difference between risk-based and 6-month recall for adults (high certainty) and probably little to no difference between 24- and 6-month recall (moderate certainty); evidence for children is uncertain. There is no clinical deadline that makes six months right for everyone.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C03).
In the book: Chapter 4
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participants in the recall-interval review participants |
1736 Published |
2020 |
Fee PA, Riley P, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Boyers D, Beirne PV. Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD004346 (PMC8256238; PMID 33053198). Cochrane Oral Health / Wiley (PMC mirror) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8256238/ |
| Trials in the recall-interval review trials |
2 Published |
2020 |
Fee PA, Riley P, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Boyers D, Beirne PV. Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD004346 (PMC8256238; PMID 33053198). Cochrane Oral Health / Wiley (PMC mirror) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8256238/ |
Caveat (the book's): Regular attenders in UK and Norwegian trials; clinical outcomes, not attendance. Doesn't say any one patient's interval is wrong.
NICE (UK) guidance says the recall interval is set for each patient at the end of each review, between 3 and 24 months for adults and 3 and 12 months under 18, and recorded with whether the patient agreed.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C04).
In the book: Chapter 4
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| NICE CG19: longest interval, patients 18 and older months |
24 Published |
2004, reviewed 2020 |
Dental checks: intervals between oral health reviews. NICE clinical guideline CG19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg19 |
| NICE CG19: longest interval, patients under 18 months |
12 Published |
2004, reviewed 2020 |
Dental checks: intervals between oral health reviews. NICE clinical guideline CG19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg19 |
| NICE CG19: shortest interval between oral health reviews, all patients months |
3 Published |
2004, reviewed 2020 |
Dental checks: intervals between oral health reviews. NICE clinical guideline CG19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg19 |
Caveat (the book's): UK guidance (2004, reviewed 2020), not a US rule. Used only to show intervals are individual and a range, never to set one.
Patients on periodontal maintenance drift too: studies find anywhere from 3.3% to 86.8% fully compliant, with no agreed definition of compliance.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C13).
In the book: Chapter 4
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Same review: highest share of full compliers found percent |
86.8% Published |
2020 (abstract read) |
Amerio E, Mainas G, Petrova D, et al. Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(1):81-100. PMID 31562778. J Clin Periodontol (abstract via PubMed) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31562778/ |
| Periodontal maintenance studies: lowest share of full compliers found percent |
3.3% Published |
2020 (abstract read) |
Amerio E, Mainas G, Petrova D, et al. Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(1):81-100. PMID 31562778. J Clin Periodontol (abstract via PubMed) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31562778/ |
Caveat (the book's): Abstracts; clinical populations. Used only to say perio patients belong in the same routine, on the dentist's intervals.
In Helsinki's public dental clinics, which sent no reminders, 18.2% of 41,255 adults had their next exam on time, 22.2% came late (7-24 months after the due date) and 59.6% had none in the study period.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C07).
In the book: Chapter 2
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helsinki public dental clinics cohort (individualised recall, no reminder system) adults |
41255 Published |
2009 cohort; published 2023 |
Haukka A, Kaila M, Haukka J, Heikkinen AM. Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(1):177-185. doi:10.1002/cre2.686. PMID 36322122; PMC9932253. Wiley (open access); PMC Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9932253/ |
| Had it late (7-24 months after the due date) percent |
22.2% Published |
2009 cohort; published 2023 |
Haukka A, Kaila M, Haukka J, Heikkinen AM. Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(1):177-185. doi:10.1002/cre2.686. PMID 36322122; PMC9932253. Wiley (open access); PMC Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9932253/ |
| Had no follow-up exam in the study period percent |
59.6% Published |
2009 cohort; published 2023 |
Haukka A, Kaila M, Haukka J, Heikkinen AM. Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(1):177-185. doi:10.1002/cre2.686. PMID 36322122; PMC9932253. Wiley (open access); PMC Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9932253/ |
| Had the next exam on time percent |
18.2% Published |
2009 cohort; published 2023 |
Haukka A, Kaila M, Haukka J, Heikkinen AM. Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(1):177-185. doi:10.1002/cre2.686. PMID 36322122; PMC9932253. Wiley (open access); PMC Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9932253/ |
Caveat (the book's): Public system in Finland, 2009 cohort, individual intervals of 12-60 months, no reminder system. Shows what happens when nobody books or follows up; not a benchmark for a US private practice.
Across 7 trials (5,841 people), text reminders raised attendance at booked appointments (risk ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.26); attendance was 67.8% with no reminder, 78.6% with texts and 80.3% with calls, and texts and calls did about the same (RR 0.99). None of the review's 8 trials was dental.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C05).
In the book: Chapter 8
Caveat (the book's): Booked appointments across health care, 2013. Not about patients with nothing booked, which is this book's overdue band.
In one UK general dental practice (1998), failed attendance fell from 9.4% with no reminder to as low as 3% with a reminder, and the form of reminder made no difference.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C06).
In the book: Chapter 8
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| One UK general dental practice: failed attendance with no reminder percent of appointments |
9.4% Published |
1998 (abstract read) |
Reekie D, Devlin H. Preventing failed appointments in general dental practice: a comparison of reminder methods. Br Dent J. 1998;185(9):472-4. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4809840. PMID 9854344. British Dental Journal (abstract via PubMed E-utilities) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9854344/ |
| Same practice: lowest failed-attendance rate with a reminder (the form of reminder made no difference) percent of appointments |
3% Published |
1998 (abstract read) |
Reekie D, Devlin H. Preventing failed appointments in general dental practice: a comparison of reminder methods. Br Dent J. 1998;185(9):472-4. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4809840. PMID 9854344. British Dental Journal (abstract via PubMed E-utilities) Captured 26 September 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9854344/ |
Caveat (the book's): One practice, 1998, abstract only; booked appointments.
An ADA practice-management page asks whether 90% of recare patients are scheduled for their next appointment at all times, and sets a no-show and cancellation target of 5% or less.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C11).
In the book: Chapter 5
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA practice-management page: target share of recare patients scheduled for their next appointment (a target, no data) percent of recare patients |
90% Published |
undated page; captured 2026-09-26 |
4a. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) — Measuring Success. ADA Guidelines for Practice Success: Managing Finances. American Dental Association Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.ada.org/resources/practice/practice-management/measuring-success20160428t155202 |
Caveat (the book's): Targets with no data or method behind them; undated page. The book may quote it as a target, never as what practices achieve.
The ADA treats a patient of record as active with a dental service in the past 24 months (split at 12) and inactive after 24 months; an office's own outreach cut-off (18 months at Kestrel Park, book two) is a business choice inside that.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C02).
In the book: Chapter 1, Appendix A, Appendix C
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA policy: active = service in the past 12 months, or in the past 24 months but not the past 12 months |
12 Published |
captured 2026-09-26 |
Active vs. Inactive Patients. American Dental Association, Guidelines for Practice Success: Managing Finances / Risk Management and Fraud Prevention. American Dental Association Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.ada.org/resources/practice/practice-management/active-vs-inactive-patients |
| ADA definition: inactive after 24 months with no dental service from the dentist months |
24 Published |
captured 2026-09-26 |
Active vs. Inactive Patients. American Dental Association, Guidelines for Practice Success: Managing Finances / Risk Management and Fraud Prevention. American Dental Association Captured 26 September 2026 · https://www.ada.org/resources/practice/practice-management/active-vs-inactive-patients |
Caveat (the book's): A records definition, not a recall or outreach rule. The ADA page says nothing about due dates or 18 months.
Source notes
- Fee PA, Riley P, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Boyers D, Beirne PV. Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD004346 (PMC8256238; PMID 33053198). (Cochrane Oral Health / Wiley (PMC mirror); Searches to 17 January 2020; published 2020; captured 26 September 2026)
About clinical outcomes of recall intervals among regular attenders (UK NHS adults, INTERVAL trial; Norwegian under-20s). Not about attendance rates, overdue shares, reminders, or pre-appointing. Trials enrolled regular attenders only. Does not say six months is wrong for any individual; does not address US insurance frequency limits. - Dental checks: intervals between oral health reviews. NICE clinical guideline CG19. (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK); Published 27 October 2004; last reviewed 31 March 2020 (not updated after INTERVAL trial); captured 26 September 2026)
UK (NHS) guideline; not binding in the US. About oral health review (exam) intervals set by the dentist, not hygiene/prophylaxis appointments per se, and not about booking/pre-appointing mechanics (though 1.1.4 and 1.1.7 say the interval is chosen at the end of the review and recorded). No attendance data. - Amerio E, Mainas G, Petrova D, et al. Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(1):81-100. PMID 31562778. (J Clin Periodontol (abstract via PubMed); 2019/2020; captured 26 September 2026)
Periodontal maintenance only; range is too wide to use as a benchmark; useful to show the absence of a standard metric. - Haukka A, Kaila M, Haukka J, Heikkinen AM. Adherence to individualized recall intervals for oral health examinations. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(1):177-185. doi:10.1002/cre2.686. PMID 36322122; PMC9932253. (Wiley (open access); PMC; Cohort: OHEs in 2009, Helsinki public clinics; published 2022/2023; captured 26 September 2026)
Finnish public system, no reminders and no pre-booking, long intervals (12-60 months). Not transferable as a US private-practice rate. Closest primary evidence to 'share overdue/never returning' but in a very different system. - Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458 (pub3). (Cochrane Collaboration (LSHTM repository PDF); Published 2013 Issue 12; captured 26 September 2026)
Reminders for already-booked appointments in non-dental settings; 2013 (perishable in the sense that a newer Cochrane/other review may exist). Does not measure recall of unbooked patients, pre-appointing, or dental attendance. Heterogeneous, low-to-moderate quality. - Reekie D, Devlin H. Preventing failed appointments in general dental practice: a comparison of reminder methods. Br Dent J. 1998;185(9):472-4. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4809840. PMID 9854344. (British Dental Journal (abstract via PubMed E-utilities); 1998; captured 26 September 2026)
Old (1998), one UK practice, booked appointments only (not recall of unbooked patients). Abstract only. - 4a. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) — Measuring Success. ADA Guidelines for Practice Success: Managing Finances. (American Dental Association; Undated (URL stamp suggests 2016-04-28); captured 2026-09-26; captured 26 September 2026)
These are ADA-published rules of thumb/targets with no stated data, sample or method. They are NOT observed benchmarks of what practices actually achieve. If used, phrase as 'ADA practice-management guidance poses a 90% target', never as 'practices average X'. - Active vs. Inactive Patients. American Dental Association, Guidelines for Practice Success: Managing Finances / Risk Management and Fraud Prevention. (American Dental Association; Undated page; captured 2026-09-26 (no page date found in HTML); captured 26 September 2026)
Record-keeping/status definition, not a recall or hygiene-interval standard. Says nothing about recall due dates, overdue patients, pre-appointing, or 18 months. The book's 18-month overdue-band ceiling is NOT an ADA definition (ADA uses 12 and 24 months). Page advises checking local law.
Back to the companion page for The Overdue Patient List, or run the recall flow calculator. Its figures here are recorded in the book's foundation files (commit 1747559f).