The employment of dental hygienists in European countries: Report of a European Dental Hygienists Federation/European Association of Dental Public Health Survey in 2021.

AIM: This survey aimed to investigate a range of topics relating to the employment of dental hygienists in European countries, whose National Dental Hygienists Associations (NDHAs) were members of the EDHF. METHODS: During 2020/2021, an online questionnaire and participant information leaflet were distributed by email in each of the 24 countries, whose NDHA is a member of the EFDH or to an EADPH member who was likely to respond. RESULTS: The broad term employment of dental hygienists was taken to include current numbers, place of work (public or private clinics and other locations), whether they were currently working as dental hygienists, their pay, any planned changes in their employment and their participation in continuing education. Twenty-four countries (92%) responded. Hungary and Poland reported that fewer than 35% of their qualified dental hygienists were working as dental hygienists. In 10 countries, often for family reasons, over 40% worked part-time. In 14 countries, over 70% worked in private clinics. Average annual pay ranged from €8400 in public clinics in Poland to €106,000 in dental hygienist-owned clinics in Denmark Regular participation in continuing education was mandatory in only nine countries. CONCLUSIONS: Dental hygienists play a different role within the oral healthcare system in each European country. There is a wide variation in their education, places of employment, annual pay and continuing education requirements.

The development of digital dentistry in the UK: An overview.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the benefits which digital technology offers to all aspects of dental practice and education. This paper provides an overview of how digital technology has enhanced clinical and administrative procedures within dental practice, including computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM), digital radiography, 3D printing, patient records, electronic patient referrals and electronic communications from dental practices. It then considers the development of teledentistry (mHealth) and its benefits in enabling distant consultations with patients, who for one reason or another are unable to visit dental practices easily. It then goes on to consider how and why digital dental distance learning materials were provided to general dental practitioners in England by the Department of Health (DoH) (England) and how they evolved. Finally, this paper considers the use of digital technology in dental education by dental schools.

European Federation of Periodontology Survey of Postgraduate and Specialist Training in Europe in 2020.

AIMS: The survey's aim was to establish which universities and other educational organisations deliver postgraduate and specialist training in Periodontology in the 31 countries who are members of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and to obtain details of how these programmes are organised, funded, regulated and evaluated. METHODS: A questionnaire and covering letter were emailed to all national periodontal societies. The questions were on the name of country, official recognition, training programmes, entry to specialist training, specialist training assessment and recognition after completion of training. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (93%) of national periodontal societies responded. Key findings included the following: Periodontology was reported as being recognised at a national level in 17 countries, there was a three-year full-time programme in 12 countries, no fees were charged for specialist training in 10 countries, in 14 countries trainees received annual salaries, end of training (summative) assessments varied from country to country, 12 countries reported that they had a requirement for specialists in Periodontology to complete continuing education to maintain registration as specialists. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has established which universities and other educational organisations deliver postgraduate and specialist training in Periodontology and how these programmes are organised, funded, regulated and evaluated. To provide uniformly high-quality periodontal care for patients in all European countries, further harmonisation of postgraduate and specialty training in Periodontology would be advantageous.

An investigation into possible factors that may impact on the potential for inappropriate prescriptions of antibiotics: a survey of general dental practitioners' approach to treating adults with acute dental pain.

Objective To investigate factors that might influence inappropriate prescriptions of antibiotics (ABs) by UK-based general dental practitioners (GDPs) in their management of acute dental pain in adults in primary dental care.Methods A questionnaire was circulated via social media to UK-based GDPs. The questionnaire examined GDPs' likelihood of issuing an inappropriate AB in two hypothetical clinical scenarios.Results A total of 205 questionnaires were completed, of which 198 were included for analysis. The resulting data were analysed to try and identify factors that correlated with an increased likelihood of an inappropriate AB prescription being issued for each clinical scenario. The results suggested the following factors as being associated with a statistically greater chance of the survey respondent issuing an inappropriate AB prescription: no postgraduate qualification; received their primary dental qualification from a non-UK university; scheduled appointments of less than 20 minutes; and low confidence in their ability to provide adequate local anaesthesia for the patients in the clinical scenario.Conclusions Four factors were shown to be associated with dentists' stated intention to prescribe ABs for acute dental pain, not in accordance with guidance. These results should guide further research to understand the significance of appropriate AB prescribing on the quality of urgent dental care. While the total number of respondents was too low to enable the results to be generalised, it is hoped that the results may help guide future research. Further studies could focus on these factors to understand more about their impact on the urgent care of adult patients in pain. The impact of the restrictions caused by the response to COVID-19 needs to be considered.

Mouth care training and practice: a survey of nursing staff working in National Health Service hospitals in England.

Background: This study investigated the training and mouth care practice of nursing staff in hospital Trusts across England. Oral health has been found to deteriorate during hospital admission, mouth care standards have been found to be poor. Aims: The objectives of the study were to assess if and what the barriers are to supporting inpatients' mouth care, and to assess how confident nursing staff are in carrying out mouth care assessments and mouth care and see if this is related to previous training. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted in 33 Trusts in England with 1576 members of the nursing team including nurses and nursing assistants. Nursing staff were asked to complete a questionnaire on previous oral health training and their current practice. Results: Nursing staff reported that they had limited training in mouth care. The main barriers to mouth care were time and patient compliance. Confidence in recognising oral cancer was low. Conclusions: Nursing staff would benefit from mouth care training targeted at assessing the mouth and providing mouth care for all inpatients.

Service evaluation of the paediatric dental general anaesthesia service in NHS Lothian.

Objective To gain insight into the reasons for children undergoing dental treatment under general anaesthesia in NHS Lothian.Methods This service evaluation was based on a representative sample size of 294 patients, randomly selected from the 1,236 children seen for dental general anaesthesia (DGA) during 2017 in NHS Lothian. Data on patient and treatment descriptors were collected retrospectively from clinical records and analysed to identify significant correlations.Results The data indicated paediatric DGAs were mostly provided due to dental caries (88%, 260/294) and for children from the most deprived areas of Lothian. Most children were referred because they were of a very young age or had needs which precluded treatment under local anaesthesia (LA). Almost every child had teeth extracted under DGA (99%, 290/294) and a third of children received restorations (33%, 96/294).Discussion and conclusion This study highlighted the disproportionate increased risk of dental caries and DGA in children from more deprived backgrounds, despite a nationwide reduction of children with caries experience. There is a need for more holistic, whole-system approaches to reduce child dental caries, with opportunities for collaborative work with local stakeholders to follow-up children who have had DGA. More research is needed locally and nationally to inform the translation of evidence into effective interventions.

Motivation to Follow a Career in Dentistry of Students in Three South-East European Countries.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare the factors that motivated students to study dentistry in countries with similar background (Albania, Croatia and the Republic of Northern Macedonia) and to assess whether or not their motivation changed during time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2014/2015, cross-sectional studies were conducted in state funded dental schools in Tirana (Albania), Zagreb (Croatia) and Skopje (Macedonia) to assess student views on their career motivation. All dental students from the first, third and final years of study were invited to participate. The participation was voluntary and anonymous. A five-item questionnaire was translated into languages of the participating countries. Ethics approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the University of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Skopje. The Chi square test was used to test if there were statistically significant differences in answers between students in 3 countries, furthermore between years of the study. RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 739 (319 in Tirana, 211 in Zagreb and 208 in Skopje) The differences in the answers between the first-year students from all three countries were statistically significant (χ2=82.65; p<.01). The most striking answer was to the question on parents' pressure to study dentistry, which was far more frequent in Tirana (up to 27.7%). A "positive image" was the most frequent response from students from Zagreb (up to 79.7%), but it declined from the first to the final year in Skopje. There were also significant differences between the schools within the 3rdand final years of study. CONCLUSIONS: A positive image of dental profession was the main reason for students studying dentistry at all three schools; as many as 97% of the students of the final year in Croatia, a member of the European Union (EU). In the two non-EU countries (Albania, Macedonia) it seemed that dental profession does not have such good status and student expectations are not being fulfilled, especially in Skopje (up to 33.9% willing to change their vocation and up to 64.5% lost their motivation to study) One of the strategies to improve the situation could be to include more clinical practice and to better organize the study..

Oral healthcare workforce planning in post-Brexit Britain.

The terms of the United Kingdom's (UK's) departure from the European Union (EU) are currently being negotiated. It is therefore uncertain exactly what effect they will have on planning the UK's oral healthcare workforce. Nevertheless, as 16% of dentists currently registered with the Genral Dental Council (GDC) have migrated to the UK from EU countries, this factor must be taken into consideration by workforce planners. However, it is far from being the only factor. This opinion piece therefore describes the current numbers of non-UK EU dentists and DCPs registered with the GDC and poses the question 'will they remain in the UK in the future'? It then comments on the current legislation on recognition of non-UK dental qualifications. It goes on to consider the Migration Advisory Committee's recommendation for dental practitioners, the oral healthcare needs of the population of the UK, who could address them and the implications for the Advancing Dental Care project.

Knowledge, dentist confidence and management of periodontal patients among general dentists from Belarus, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova and Romania.

BACKGROUND: Evidence concerning periodontal practice in Eastern European countries is scarce. The aim of the present study was to investigate periodontal risk knowledge, patient management and self-perceived confidence among General Dentists (GDs) from five Eastern European regarding their provision of periodontal care. METHODS: GDs from Belarus, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova and Romania participated in a questionnaire survey. Power calculations were used to identify the sample size for each country. The structured questionnaire included several domains of inquiry. The socio-demographic domain inquired about dentist's age, gender and years of clinical experience. The dental practice domain inquired about practice location, practising or not practising in a group practice and having or not having a periodontist or a dental hygienist in the practice. The distributions of answers across-countries were compared employing one way ANOVA (comparison of means) or Chi square test (comparison of proportions). For each country, the predictors of the study outcomes: a summative knowledge score for periodontal risks and dentist's confidence level were identified employing either linear or logistic multiple regression models. RESULTS: The sample comprised 390 Belarussian, 488 Lithuanian, 349 Macedonian, 316 Moldovan, and 401 Romanian GDs. The majority of GDs (~ 80%) practiced in urban areas. Age and gender distributions differed significantly among countries. Significant across-country differences were found regarding working/not working in a group practice, having/not having access to a periodontist/dental hygienist and in proportions of patients receiving periodontal treatments or being referred to specialists. None of Macedonian patients nor the majority of Moldovan patients (78%) were referred to periodontists. There were also significant across-country differences in diagnosis, patient management and periodontal knowledge. Only in the Lithuanian cohort were dentists' confidence levels associated significantly with their knowledge. In all countries, taking a medical history was a consistent and significant predictor of having higher periodontal knowledge score. Except in Belarus, periodontal risk assessment was a significantly consistent predictor of certainty levels associated with the provision of periodontal treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial differences among GDs in the five countries regarding diagnosis, dentist's confidence and management of periodontal patients.

The healthcare systems and provision of oral healthcare in European Union member states. Part 10: comparison of systems and with the United Kingdom.

Since 2015, a series of papers which describe the systems for the provision of health and oral healthcare in nine European Union (EU) countries (France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden) have been published in this journal. This tenth and final paper in the series compares aspects of the systems for each country, with each other and with that in the United Kingdom (UK). The topics which have been covered are the organisation and funding of oral healthcare, national populations and oral healthcare workforce, education of dentists, uptake of oral healthcare, expenditure on oral healthcare and oral epidemiology. The comparison shows that there are wide differences between the care provision systems between the individual countries. In all of them, oral healthcare continues to operate outside the mainstream healthcare systems. In particular, the proportion of costs paid for them from public funds, raised through taxation or through compulsory social insurances, and those paid for by individual patients varies greatly. No comparable data exist on quality of care.

Variations in the provision and cost of oral healthcare in 11 European countries: a case study.

AIM: To compare the provision and costs at the point of delivery of dental treatments in a sample of European Union (EU) Member States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire with open-ended questions was sent to oral health policy-makers in Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Scotland and Spain. They were asked to answer questions on the probable costs and provision of treatment in their country for a vignette presented as a pre-defined case. RESULTS: All respondents returned answers to all questions. Wide variations were reported in: who would deliver care, cost of items of care and total cost. For example, in France, only a dentist would provide the treatment. In Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Scotland, it was likely that the treatment would be provided by a combination of dentist, dental hygienist and dental nurse. Fees ranged from €72 in England (if treated within the NHS) to €603 in Denmark. In Italy, Spain and for most patients in Romania, all treatment costs were paid by the patient. In the other nine countries, some subsidy from public funds was available. In terms of percentage of per capita Gross National Income, the cost to the patient ranged from 0.12% in France to 1.57% in Spain. CONCLUSIONS: It was apparent that there are wide variations between EU Member States in the manner in which oral healthcare is delivered, its cost and the extent to which the cost of treatment is subsidised from state funds or through private insurance.

Prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at individual and population level: consensus report of group 3 of joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The non-communicable diseases dental caries and periodontal diseases pose an enormous burden on mankind. The dental biofilm is a major biological determinant common to the development of both diseases, and they share common risk factors and social determinants, important for their prevention and control. The remit of this working group was to review the current state of knowledge on epidemiology, socio-behavioural aspects as well as plaque control with regard to dental caries and periodontal diseases. METHODS: Discussions were informed by three systematic reviews on (i) the global burden of dental caries and periodontitis; (ii) socio-behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at an individual and population level; and (iii) mechanical and chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and dental caries. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on expert opinion of the participants. RESULTS: Key findings included the following: (i) prevalence and experience of dental caries has decreased in many regions in all age groups over the last three decades; however, not all societal groups have benefitted equally from this decline; (ii) although some studies have indicated a possible decline in periodontitis prevalence, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that prevalence has changed over recent decades; (iii) because of global population growth and increased tooth retention, the number of people affected by dental caries and periodontitis has grown substantially, increasing the total burden of these diseases globally (by 37% for untreated caries and by 67% for severe periodontitis) as estimated between 1990 and 2013, with high global economic impact; (iv) there is robust evidence for an association of low socio-economic status with a higher risk of having dental caries/caries experience and also with higher prevalence of periodontitis; (v) the most important behavioural factor, affecting both dental caries and periodontal diseases, is routinely performed oral hygiene with fluoride; (vi) population-based interventions address behavioural factors to control dental caries and periodontitis through legislation (antismoking, reduced sugar content in foods and drinks), restrictions (taxes on sugar and tobacco) guidelines and campaigns; however, their efficacy remains to be evaluated; (vii) psychological approaches aimed at changing behaviour may improve the effectiveness of oral health education; (viii) different preventive strategies have proven to be effective during the course of life; (ix) management of both dental caries and gingivitis relies heavily on efficient self-performed oral hygiene, that is toothbrushing with a fluoride-containing toothpaste and interdental cleaning; (x) professional tooth cleaning, oral hygiene instruction and motivation, dietary advice and fluoride application are effective in managing dental caries and gingivitis. CONCLUSION: The prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases and the prevention of ultimate tooth loss is a lifelong commitment employing population- and individual-based interventions.

Proceedings of a workshop, held in Constanta, Romania on 22 May 2014, on Oral Health of Children in the Central and Eastern European Countries in the context of the current economic crisis.

This report presents the proceedings of a workshop held in Constanta, Romania on 22 May 2014. During the workshop, representatives from 18 Central and Eastern European countries gave oral presentations on the current oral health of children and young adults aged 16 years and younger. The aim of the workshop was to collect and present data relating to the oral health of children from Central and Eastern European countries and to discuss them in the context of the political changes that have taken place over the last two decades and the recent economic crisis.The presenters had previously completed a series of questions on oral epidemiological studies, prevention of oral disease, treatment and payment, dental personnel, uptake of oral health care and other considerations and structured their presentations on these topics plus the influence of the economic crisis on oral health. It should be remembered that this paper is a report of the proceedings of a workshop and not a study. Ethics approval is not required for workshops.After the 18 oral presentations a 90 min discussion took place during which further points were raised. The presentations, the discussion and the conclusions which were reached are reported in this manuscript.

Health workforce governance and oral health: Diversity and challenges in Europe.

Throughout the life course, oral diseases are some of the most common non-communicable diseases globally, and in Europe. Human resources for oral health are fundamental to healthcare systems in general and dentistry is no exception. As political and healthcare systems change, so do forms of governance. The aim of this paper is to examine human resources for oral health in Europe, against a workforce governance framework, using England as a case study. The findings suggest that neo-liberalist philosophies are leading to multiple forms of soft governance at professional, system, organisational and individual levels, most notably in England, where there is no longer professional self-regulation. Benefits include professional regulation of a wider cadre of human resources for oral health, reorientation of care towards evidence-informed practice including prevention, and consideration of care pathways for patients. Across Europe there has been significant professional collaboration in relation to quality standards in the education of dentists, following transnational policies permitting freedom of movement of health professionals; however, the distribution of dentists is inequitable. Challenges include facilitating employment of graduates to serve the needs and demands of the population in certain countries, together with governance of workforce production and migration across Europe. Integrated trans-European approaches to monitoring mobility and governance are urgently required.

Standards for reporting chronic periodontitis prevalence and severity in epidemiologic studies: Proposed standards from the Joint EU/USA Periodontal Epidemiology Working Group.

Periodontal diseases are common and their prevalence varies in different populations. However, prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodology used, including measurement techniques, case definitions, and periodontal examination protocols, as well as differences in oral health status. As a consequence, comparisons between populations are severely hampered and inferences regarding the global variation in prevalence can hardly be drawn. To overcome these limitations, the authors suggest standardized principles for the reporting of the prevalence and severity of periodontal diseases in future epidemiological studies. These principles include the comprehensive reporting of the study design, the recording protocol, and specific subject-related and oral data. Further, a range of periodontal data should be reported in the total population and within specific age groups. Periodontal data include the prevalence and extent of clinical attachment loss (CAL) and probing depth (PD) on site and tooth level according to specific thresholds, mean CAL/PD, the CDC/AAP case definition, and bleeding on probing. Consistent implementation of these standards in future studies will ensure improved reporting quality, permit meaningful comparisons of the prevalence of periodontal diseases across populations, and provide better insights into the determinants of such variation.

Improving the quality of papers submitted to dental journals: Transcription of session for editors, associate editors, publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing held at IADR meeting in Cape Town on Wednesday, 25 June 2014.

This satellite symposium was the fourth in a series for editors, publishers, reviewers and all those with an interest in scientific publishing. It was held on Wednesday 25th June 2014 at the IADR International meeting in Cape Town, South Africa. The symposium attracted more than 180 attendees. This symposium placed an emphasis on how the quality of papers submitted to dental journals could be improved. The panel included representation from editors, researchers and publishers from North America, India and the Gulf States. The symposium identified a number of challenges for editors and publishers, including the poor quality of many papers submitted to dental and other scientific journals, plagiarism, attempted duplicate publication and sometimes fraudulent results. Where possible speakers are identified by name. A subsequent symposium was held during the IADR meeting in Boston on March 11th 2015. Involvement open to editors, associate editors, publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing.

How is research publishing going to progress in the next 20 years?: transcription of session for editors, associate editors, publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing held at IADR meeting in Seattle on Wednesday, 20 March 2013.

On March 20th 2013, a one-hour session for Editors, Associate Editors, Publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing was held at the IADR International Session in Seattle. Organised by Kenneth Eaton and Christopher Lynch (Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the British Dental Editors Forum), the meeting sought to bring together leading international experts in dental publishing, as well as authors, reviewers and students engaged in research. The meeting was an overwhelming success, with more than 100 attendees. A panel involving four leading dental editors led a discussion on anticipated developments in publishing dental research with much involvement and contribution from audience members. This was the third such meeting held at the IADR for Editors, Associate Editors, Publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing. A follow-up session will take place in Cape Town on 25 June 2014 as part of the annual IADR meeting. The transcript of the Seattle meeting is reproduced in this article. Where possible speakers are identified by name. At the first time of mention their role/position is also stated, thereafter only their name appears. We are grateful to Stephen Hancocks Ltd. for their generous sponsorship of this event. For those who were not able to attend the authors hope this article gives a flavour of the discussions and will encourage colleagues to attend future events. Involvement is open to Editors, Associate Editors, Publishers and others with an interest in scientific publishing. It is a very open group and all those with an interest will be welcome to join in.