Dentists' perceptions of smart phone use in the clinical environment.

Objective: To determine the use of smart phones in clinical practice and to determine the perceived impact on patient safety. Study design: A closed questionnaire survey with an exploratory open question. Setting, materials and methods: A questionnaire was sent to a sample of 216 delegates that have attended courses provided by an education provider in the North West of England between 2015­2017. Results: There was a response rate of 49.5% which represented 107 returned questionnaires. The mean year of qualification is 2008. Of the respondents,105 were general dental practitioners, and two were hospital based dentists. Of the respondents, 82.2% had their smart phone in surgery, and of these 88% had the smart phone on silent, with the respondents on average receiving three texts, four emails and one call each session. Of the respondents, 40.9% were not aware that they received a text, 53.4% an email, and 37.5% a telephone call. Whilst 50.1% responded, in some way, to a text, 46.6% to an email and 62.5% to a telephone call. Of the respondents, 61.7% think that having a phone in the surgery is a distraction. Of the respondents, 20.7% stated that smart phones should not be allowed in the surgery under any circumstance, whilst 24.1% stated that they should be allowed if on silent and out of view, and 16.4% allowed their use but not in front of patients. Conclusions: Eighty-eight percent of respondents had their smart phone with them in the surgery, with 61.7% reporting it to be a distraction from their clinical duties. It is our recommendation that each clinic has a protocol or policy that governs the use of smart phones focusing on patient safety.

Continuing professional development in implant dentistry in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Training for dental practitioners in implant dentistry ranges from 1- or 2-day short Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses to certificate/diploma programmes run by universities. In general, the teaching of implant dentistry in Europe lacks structure and standardisation. This paper aims to: (i) identify the current trends in CPD in implant dentistry in Europe; (ii) identify potential and limitations with regards to the design and implementation of CPD activities in implant dentistry; (iii) provide recommendations on the future structure and development of CPD activities in implant dentistry. METHODS: A search of the literature was undertaken in PubMed for manuscripts published in English after 2000 reporting on CPD in dentistry and in implant dentistry in particular. In addition, an electronic survey was conducted, investigating the attitudes towards CPD among a wide group of stakeholders in implant dentistry education. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide diversity of educational pathways towards achieving competences in implant dentistry through CPD. At present, there is a need for improving the CPD structures in implant dentistry, strengthening the quality assurance and encouraging standardisation and transparency of the learning outcomes. Development of a structured CPD system with clearly defined educational objectives mapped against specific levels of competence is recommended.

Current trends and status of continuing professional development in implant dentistry in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Previous surveys have shown that newly graduated dentists, in most European countries, do not obtain adequate theoretical knowledge and, especially, clinical skills in implant dentistry (ID) through their undergraduate education and must therefore acquire knowledge and develop competencies through further postgraduate study. Moreover, clinicians, in general, need to continue to maintain the currency of their competence by undertaking ongoing continuing professional development (CPD). This seems particularly important in ID as techniques, and materials develop rapidly due to advances in biomedical technology. Despite recent developments, CPD in ID remains poorly organised with little standardisation or harmonisation across Europe. The objective of this survey was to explore the current status and trends within CPD education in ID in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stakeholders and opinion leaders associated with ID education were invited by email to fill an online questionnaire (closing date: 30th April 2013). Two hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were distributed, and two separate reminders were sent to participants in 38 European countries. The survey contained 14 multiple-choice questions, and the data were collected using SurveyMonkey© software, exported in SPSS (Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) format and analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Two hundred respondents working in 24 countries replied to the survey (response rate of 81% of invitees and 63% of countries surveyed). The results demonstrated a wide divergence in the content and structure of CPD in ID in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists need CPD to develop their skills and to maintain their competence in ID. There is an urgent need for structured and accredited CPD, which should be readily available to all dentists practising ID. It should have pre-determined learning objectives, delivered by accredited CPD providers and educators, and have assessable outcome measures to ensure the best possible impact on clinical practice and patient safety.

Use of negative air pressure by nasal suction during maxillary sinus floor lift: audit of 13 consecutive sinus grafts.

A common and serious intraoperative complication of sinus floor lift is perforation of the sinus lining. Several strategies to prevent or treat it have had varying results. We report the results of an audit of 13 consecutive sinus grafts in 11 patients in which nasal suction was used to facilitate raising the sinus lining, and to reduce the risk of perforation.