The effectiveness and efficiency of hygienists in carrying out orthodontic auxiliary procedures.
(1/192)
The aim of this study was to compare the ability and efficiency of dental hygienists, after preliminary training as orthodontic auxiliaries, with post-graduate orthodontists. The study was cross-sectional and prospective. The sample consisted of five second-year hygienists and five qualified orthodontists from Manchester University Dental Hospital. All subjects carried out a range of orthodontic exercises on phantom head typodonts. The ability and efficiency for each task was measured, and comparison made between hygienists and orthodontic groups. There was no statistically significant differences between hygienists and orthodontists in terms of their ability to carry out potential orthodontic auxiliary procedures. However, orthodontists were more efficient (P < 0.05). The ability of hygienists to carry out potential orthodontic auxiliary tasks after appropriate training is supported. Trained orthodontists are more efficient than newly trained hygienists in carrying out potential orthodontic auxiliary tasks. (+info)
Occupational exposure to mercury. What is a safe level?
(2/192)
QUESTION: One of my pregnant patients, a dental hygienist, uses mercury in her workplace, but appears to have no symptoms of mercury toxicity. She has heard that mercury might affect her fetus. What should I recommend to her? What is a safe level of mercury in the air for pregnant women? ANSWER: Testing for levels of mercury in whole blood and, preferably, urine is useful for confirming exposure. Currently, mercury vapour concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/m3 are considered unsafe. Also, women of childbearing age should avoid contact with mercury salts in the workplace. (+info)
A comparison between written, verbal, and videotape oral hygiene instruction for patients with fixed appliances.
(3/192)
The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of written, videotape, and one-to-one instruction upon the knowledge, oral hygiene standard, and gingival health of subjects undergoing orthodontic treatment with a lower fixed appliance. Subjects for whom fixed appliances had been fitted recently were divided randomly into three groups of 21, 22, and 22, respectively. Group 1 received written oral hygiene instruction, group 2 a specially made videotape, and group 3 saw a hygienist for one-to-one instruction. Results were assessed in terms of improvement in knowledge concerning oral hygiene procedures, and of plaque and gingival index scores. Analysis of variance revealed no significant main effects or interactions at P = 0.05, although the difference in the plaque index scores before and after instruction was close to significance. (+info)
A national survey of dental hygienists: working patterns and job satisfaction.
(4/192)
OBJECTIVE: To describe the working practices and level of job satisfaction of dental hygienists in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey of 3,955 dental hygienists registered with the General Dental Council. Replies were received from 2,533 (64%). RESULTS: At the time of the survey only a small proportion of respondents (11%) were not working as dental hygienists, the most common reason for a current career break being child rearing. The majority of dental hygienists (78%) were employed in general dental practices, and most worked in more than one practice (64%). Approximately half worked part-time (fewer than 30 hours per week), and part-time working was more common amongst those respondents with childcare responsibilities. In the region of 60% of respondents had taken one or more career breaks during their working life, and the average total duration of career breaks was 11 months, the most common reason for all career breaks was child rearing. Additional qualifications had been gained by 35% of the sample, a high proportion (75%) had attended training courses in the previous year. The respondents expressed a high degree of job satisfaction, those who were older and who had childcare responsibilities expressed higher levels of job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Dental hygienists express a high level of job satisfaction. A proportion take breaks in their career, most commonly for pregnancy and child rearing. The majority return to part-time employment after their career break. Planning of future requirements for the training of professionals complementary to dentistry should be informed by a consideration of the working patterns of dental hygienists. (+info)
Trends in allied dental education: an analysis of the past and a look to the future.
(5/192)
Allied dental healthcare providers have been an integral part of the dental team since the turn of the 19th century. Like dental education, allied dental education's history includes a transition from apprenticeships and proprietary school settings to dental schools and community and technical colleges. There are currently 258 dental assisting programs, 255 dental hygiene programs, and 28 dental laboratory technology programs according to the American Dental Association's Commission on Dental Accreditation. First-year enrollment increased 9.5 percent in dental hygiene education from 1994/95 to 1998/99, while enrollment in dental assisting programs declined 7 percent and declined 31 percent in dental laboratory technology programs during the same period. Program capacity exceeds enrollment in all three areas of allied dental education. Challenges facing allied dental education include addressing the dental practicing community's perception of a shortage of dental assistants and dental hygienists and increasing pressure for career tracks that do not require education in ADA Commission on Dental Accreditation accredited programs. The allied dental workforce may also be called upon for innovative approaches to improve access to oral health care and reduce oral health care disparities. In addition, allied dental education programs may face challenges in recruiting faculty with the desired academic credentials. ADEA is currently pursuing initiatives in these and other areas to address the current and emerging needs of allied dental education. (+info)
ADEA annual survey of clinic fees and revenue: 1998-1999 academic year.
(6/192)
The American Dental Education Association's 1998-1999 Survey of Clinic Fees and Revenue obtained data by which to report, by school, clinic revenue information per undergraduate student. Fifty of the fifty-five U.S. dental schools responded to the survey. The median revenue per third-year student was $6,313. It was $11,680 for fourth-year students. Clinic revenue data was also obtained by type of postdoctoral program. The postdoctoral general dentistry programs had the highest per student clinic revenues, at over $59,000 per AEGD student and almost $35,000 per student of GPR programs. Other areas of the survey provided information regarding clinic fees by type of program, levels of uncompensated care by type of program, clinic revenue by source of payment, and dental school fees as a percent of usual and customary private practice fees. (+info)
Dentistry's role in tobacco control.
(7/192)
BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking remains the nation's leading preventable cause of premature mortality. Tobacco use also is responsible for 75 percent of deaths resulting from oral and pharyngeal cancer, more than one-half of the cases of periodontitis and numerous other oral health effects. METHODS: The author summarized the prevalence of tobacco use in the United States, evaluated recent literature on the status of tobacco control activities in dental schools and dental practice, and reviewed new guidelines on clinical and community-based interventions for tobacco use. RESULTS: Nearly 25 percent of adults and 35 percent of high-school students smoke cigarettes, and many use other forms of tobacco. More than one-half of adult smokers and nearly three-fourths of adolescents see a dentist each year. However, more than 40 percent of dentists do not routinely ask about tobacco use, and 60 percent do not routinely advise tobacco users to quit. Meanwhile, less than one-half of dental schools and dental hygiene programs provide clinical tobacco intervention services. CONCLUSIONS: At least 50 dental organizations have adopted policy statements about tobacco use, but much work needs to be done in translating those policy statements into action. Tobacco use remains prevalent in the United States, and dentistry has not yet maximized its efforts to reduce it. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The recently issued U.S. Public Health Service guidelines on treating tobacco use and dependence provides evidence-based, practical methods for dentists and other primary care providers to incorporate into their practice. Because dentists and dental hygienists can be effective in treating tobacco use and dependence, the identification, documentation and treatment of every tobacco user they see need to become a routine practice in every dental office and clinic. (+info)
The effectiveness of a Mock Board experience in coaching students for the Dental Hygiene National Board Examination.
(8/192)
A Mock Board is available through the American Dental Association to any student or dental hygiene program as a study aid for the Dental Hygiene National Board Examination (DHNBE). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of this Mock Board as a learning activity to help students gain familiarity with the question formats and the overall board exam experience. A sensitivity-specificity model was applied to validate the Mock Board's accuracy in identifying students who would pass or fail the DHNBE. A survey was conducted to assess students' opinions of the Mock Board experience. The Mock Board accurately identified success or failure on the DHNBE for 75 percent of the participants. However, the Mock Board's sensitivity was much better than its specificity. A majority of students reported the Mock Board motivated them to study and prepared them well for the national board experience. Comments showed, however, that students did not feel the Mock Board experience was as intense as taking the DHNBE. Findings indicate the Mock Board can be a valid and effective addition to board preparation activities. Dental hygiene faculty members are urged to consider incorporating the Mock Board experience with more traditional methods of coaching in preparing students for the DHNBE. (+info)