Workplace Bullying: A survey of Virginia dental hygienists.

Purpose: Workplace bullying in health care has been identified as a problem that negatively affects career satisfaction, career longevity and patient outcomes. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the prevalence of workplace bullying in a convenience sample of dental hygienists in the state of Virginia.Methods: Two hundred and forty Virginia dental hygienists attending a continuing education seminar were invited to participate. Using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R), respondents were asked to indicate how often they had experienced 22 negative acts or behaviors according to rate of occurrence (never, now and then or monthly, weekly or daily). Bullying was defined as experiencing two or more of the specified negative behaviors over the past 6 months. The negative behaviors were categorized into three subgroups: work-related bullying, personal bullying and physical intimidation.Results: The response rate was 64%. Data revealed almost one fourth (24%) of respondents experienced workplace bullying. The most frequent behaviors experienced by those being bullied were having their opinions and views ignored (73%), experiencing unmanageable workloads (68%) and having their work excessively monitored (68%), on a weekly or daily basis.Conclusions: Results from this study suggest approximately 1 out of 4 Virginia dental hygienists responding to this survey experience workplace bullying. Education and support to ensure identification of bullying may be helpful in promoting proactive awareness, prevention strategies and a healthier work environment leading to greater job satisfaction.

Effects of occupational ultrasonic noise exposure on hearing of dental hygienists: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this case-control study was to determine whether long-term ultrasonic noise exposure via the dental office environment is related to dental hygienists' hearing status. METHODS: Registered dental hygienists (N = 698) who live in the Hampton Roads areas of Virginia were mailed a Dental Hygiene Work History Questionnaire to determine who would meet the inclusion criteria and would be willing to participate in the study. Consenting subjects were categorized into one of two groups, according to ultrasonic scaler usage rate, and matched on age. Persons with known hearing loss due to infection, disease, or congenital defect were excluded from the study. The final sample consisted of 20 dental hygienists with a high ultrasonic usage rate and a matched group of 20 dental hygienists who had a low ultrasonic usage rate. Once the groups were formed, a certified audiologist tested subjects' hearing in each ear via the pure-tone audiometer. Audiometric data were analyzed using the analysis of variance for repeated measures procedure to determine if degree of ultrasonic scaler noise exposure in the dental office environment was significantly related to hearing status in these dental hygienists. RESULTS: Results revealed that the right and left ears were not statistically different in the hearing threshold levels, regardless of group status. However, there was a significant difference in the high ultrasonic usage group and the low ultrasonic usage group at the 3000 Hz. No differences were found at the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these outcomes, the ultrasonic scaler is not considered to have a negative effect on the hearing of dental hygienists at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz, but may be related to hearing loss at 3000 Hz. Ultrasonic noise may in fact be affecting dental hygienists' hearing at 3000 Hz, but loss of hearing observed at the higher frequencies may be attributed to other unidentified factors present in both groups.

The comparative effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine and herbal oral rinse on dental plaque-induced gingivitis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of two oral rinses-one 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse (CHX) and one herbal rinse (HBR)-on gingival health status over time. METHODS: Sixty-three participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: CHX, HBR, or placebo. For three months, participants rinsed twice daily (morning and evening) with (1/2) ounce of allocated rinse after brushing and flossing. Individuals were given the same type of soft bristle toothbrush and whitening toothpaste. No attempt was made to modify participants' routine oral care, except they were advised to refrain from use of any other oral rinse for the duration of the study. Data were collected at baseline (B), month one (1), two (2), and three (3) utilizing the Gingival Index (GI), Plaque Index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP). A full mouth periodontal probing was performed at baseline and at the completion of the study. A soft tissue oral assessment was completed at each visit. CHX, HBR, and placebo data were compared between three time intervals, B-1, B-2, and B-3. Statistical analysis was conducted by means of multiple regression using generalized linear models. Paired comparison tests--ANOVA followed by a post hoc Tukey test--were used to confirm results. RESULTS: CHX was the only oral rinse to demonstrate a statistically significant effect on the reduction of mean GI, BOP, and PI scores when compared to placebo. CHX demonstrated a 31% reduction in the proportion of GI scores between B-2 and a 29% reduction between B-3 (p=.003 and p=.012, respectively). CHX demonstrated a 19% reduction of BOP sites between B-1, 32% reduction between B-2, and 29% reduction between B-3 (p=.028, p=.000, and p=.005, respectively). CHX demonstrated a 20% reduction in PI scores between B-1, and a 28% reduction between B-2 (p=.005 and p=.032, respectively). The effects of HBR on reducing mean GI, BOP, and PI scores were not statistically greater than placebo at any time during the study.