Intraoral clinical examinations of pediatric patients with anticipatory anxiety and situational fear facilitated by therapy dog assistance: A pilot RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the presence of a certified therapy dog specially trained for working in a dental setting may facilitate dental care of anxious pediatric patients. METHODS: The Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics approved a randomized cross-over trial with a study sample of n = 16 children aged between 6 and 12 years. The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Pediatric patients referred to specialist care at the Public Dental Service Competence Center of Northern Norway (TkNN) because of anxiety were invited to partake in the trial. Study participants met twice for an intraoral examination by a specialist pediatric dentist. Per random allocation, a therapy dog team was present in the clinic operatory during the clinical examination on the first or the second visit. The primary outcome was the assessment of patient compliance during the intraoral examination (yes/no). Secondary outcomes were measurements of child satisfaction and anxiety using the CFSS-DS scale (Dental subscale of Children's Fear Survey Schedule) completed by a parent/guardian. Supplementary outcomes were salivary cortisol level, heart rate variability, and skin conductance. RESULTS: Ten boys and six girls (mean age 8.5) were recruited. All completed both clinical visits and demonstrated full compliance while undergoing a dental examination. All study participants and guardians reported great satisfaction. The salivary cortisol level reduction during the clinical examination on the first visit decreased by 30% in the presence of the therapy dog and 20% without, while the decrease during the clinical examination on the second visit was 29% in the presence of the therapy dog and 3% without. Within the limitations of the experimental setup, the electrophysiological measurements were unreliable in the current study population. CONCLUSION: Dog-assisted therapy in a dental care setting appears to have a positive effect on children with dental anxiety or children that avoid dental care.

Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic. Part B. Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog.

Background: A dental therapy dog may help anxious patients in the dental clinic overcome their fear and facilitate the completion of necessary dental care. Dental clinic activities are associated with hazards that may pose potential risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog. Objectives: To describe potential hazards associated with risks to health and safety to therapy dogs in dental clinics and to present suggestions for risk minimisation by adopting best practices in dental clinic settings. Materials and method: Literature searches in Medline, http://Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for qualitative and quantitative assessments of occupational hazards and risks in dental clinics, in combination with a review of the reference list of the included studies. Identified hazards and risks were analysed relative to their relevance for the health and welfare of a therapy dog present in a dental clinic setting. Results: Workplace hazards in the dental clinic that apply to both humans and therapy dogs are allergies, sharps injury, eye injury, stress, rhinitis, hearing impairment, and other hazards. Additional concerns associated with risks for the dental therapy dog are situations involving erratic patient behaviour and threats if the patient is an undisclosed disease carrier. Risks to the health and safety of the dental therapy dog in the clinics are present but are low if the dental clinical staff and dog handlers comply with best practices. Conclusions: Best practice includes awareness amongst the clinic staff and the dog handler of all potential hazards in the dental clinic and on how to reduce these hazards as well as adverse events that may scare the dental therapy dog. The dental therapy dog team must be specially trained to work in a dental clinic. Each treatment session has to be exclusively tailored to that specific appointment and the individual patient.

Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic: Part A-Hazards and assessment of potential risks to the health and safety of humans.

Background: Dog-assisted therapy in the dental clinic may be an attractive alternative to sedation for anxious patients. Including a dental therapy dog in a clinical setting introduces new hazards and potential risks to health and safety for both humans and animal. Objectives: The study aims to describe potential hazards associated with risks to humans by having a therapy dog present in the dental clinic and to provide guidance on best practices to minimise and control risks for the patients, the dentist, and the dental clinic staff. Materials and Methods: Literature searches in Medline, http://Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for qualitative and quantitative assessments of hazards and risks associated with the use of therapy dogs in health care settings, in combination with a review of the reference list of the included studies. Identified hazards and risks were analysed with respect for the health and welfare of humans in a dental clinic setting that involves the presence of a therapy dog. Results: Potential risks to health and safety for humans in dental clinics that offer dog-assisted therapy can be categorised within four general categories of hazards: the dog as a source of zoonotic pathogens and human diseases, exposure to canine allergens, adverse animal behaviour, and dangers associated with high activity in a congested dental clinic operatory. Risks to humans are reduced by maintaining awareness amongst the dental clinic staff and the dog handler of all potential hazards in the dental clinic, and on how to reduce these hazards as well as adverse events that may scare the dental therapy dog. Conclusions: Risks to the health and safety of humans in the presence of therapy dog in the clinics are present but are low if the dental clinical staff and dog handlers comply with best practices.

Benchmarking Outcomes in Implant Prosthodontics: Partial Fixed Dental Prostheses and Crowns Supported by Implants with a Turned Surface over 10 to 28 Years at the University of Toronto.

PURPOSE: The aim of this noninterventional, retrospective study was to benchmark the outcomes of patients with partial fixed prostheses supported by implants treated at the University of Toronto at least 10 years earlier. A study protocol for assessing outcomes on like patients developed at the University of Bern, Switzerland, was followed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had received at least one implant before 2002 were considered eligible to be included in the study (n = 298). The treatment histories were recorded from the patient chart of the participants, or from the participants' dentists by consent. Calibrated clinicians examined the study participants clinically and radiologically and recorded peri-implant mucosal status and observable technical and mechanical failures. Past adverse events were identified in the patient charts. Independent assessors measured bone levels on digitized radiographs. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics at implants, teeth, and study participant levels, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 298 eligible patients, 121 attended a clinical examination (41%), while 12 declined (4%). The 121 study participants had received 321 implants between 1983 and 2001. The implants showed a success rate of 88.9% and a survival rate of 94% after an average of 17.5 years (SD 5.2, range 10 to 28 years). Approximately 5% of the surviving implants showed signs, or were associated with a prior history, of peri-implantitis. The distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone contact varied from -3 mm to 7 mm (mean = 1.52 mm [SD 1.57], median = 2.2 mm). Approximately half of the study participants had experienced at least one defect of their superstructure, representing a 52% "success rate," while the survival rate was 70%. The majority were very satisfied or satisfied with the treatment (102/121). CONCLUSION: A high proportion (94%) of conventional machined Brånemark System implants placed between 1983 and 2001 remained in function after an average of 17.5 years. The original superstructures predominantly fabricated as prefabricated acrylic teeth and acrylic resin reinforced with a cast palladium-silver alloy core were still in place for 70% of the participants, and 48% of the superstructures had never undergone any form of repairs.