Nicholas Longridge

Objectives There is increasing recognition of the value and capabilities of design in healthcare. Beyond the development of medical devices, design is increasingly being applied to intangible, complex and systemic healthcare problems. However, there is limited evidence on the use of design specifically in the field of oral health. This systematic mapping study aims to collate and catalogue evidence of design in oral health. Methods A systematic search of academic databases and grey literature was performed. Duplicate results were removed, and publications relating to the same project were grouped. Reviewers from design and oral health independently screened a sample of the dataset. Projects of both relevance to oral health, and with input from a designer or clear implementation of a design methodology or approach were included. Projects were coded and plotted on a novel interactive evidence map. Results 119 design and oral health projects were included between 1973 and 2022. Interventional ( n = 94, 79%), empirical ( n = 46, 39%), methodological ( n = 35, 29%) and theoretical ( n = 7, 6%) design contributions were identified across the projects. The projects were categorized by four orders of design: first—graphics ( n = 6, 5%), second—products ( n = 41, 34%), third—interactions ( n = 70, 59%), and fourth—systems ( n = 2, 2%). Design was found in a diverse range of contexts in oral health; most commonly being relevant to general patients ( n = 61, 51%), and for use in general dental practice ( n = 56, 47%). Further design outcome categories (digital material; printed material; object; room or space; apparel; process; smart device; tangible interface; graphical interface; virtual reality; service; policy; system) and oral health themes (oral health literacy; oral care training; dental clinic design; dental instruments and equipment; personal oral care; dental appliance; clinician health and productivity; clinical information systems; informed consent; oral health promotion and prevention; oral care training; patient interactions and experience) were identified. Conclusions The novel interactive evidence map of design in oral health created enables ongoing and open‐ended multivariant documentation and analysis of the evidence, as well as identification of strategic opportunities. Future research and policy implications include; recognition and engagement with the full capabilities of design; integration of design experts; fostering inclusive engagement and collaboration; disentangling patient and public involvement; advancing human‐centred systems approaches; adopting design‐led approaches for policy‐making.