Dentists' knowledge, attitudes, and professional behavior toward the COVID-19 pandemic: A multisite survey of dentists' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 continues to affect the dental community worldwide. The authors conducted a cross-sectional electronic study using a multisite survey to examine dentists' knowledge, attitudes, and professional behavior toward COVID-19 and the affect on their livelihood. METHODS: A questionnaire was circulated via e-mail and social media platforms to dentists in North America, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific regions. It covered demographic characteristics and questions about the COVID-19 outbreak related to dentists' levels of comfort for preventive and safety measures, provision of treatment, affect on work, and financial implications. Responses were tabulated and analyzed by means of χ2 or Fisher exact test. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare means. P < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1,251 dentists responded. General dentists represented 63.9% of the respondents and 62.5% worked in private practice. The global score for level of comfort with the preventive measures and provisions of treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic was low (14 of 30), and differences between regions were significant (P < .01); dentists working in private practice and general dental practitioners were less comfortable (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The respondents reported a lack of preparedness to confront a highly infectious respiratory disease. A new level of protective armamentarium in the dental operatory and updated operational guidance and policies are required, necessitating educators and regulators to ensure the delivery of knowledge and skills to oral health care providers. Dentists need to address the sustainability of their practices and have a robust business plan.

ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education III: Assessment in competency-based dental education: Ways forward.

Assessment in competency-based dental education continues to be a recognized area for growth and development within dental programs around the world. At the joint American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) 2019 conference, Shaping the Future of Dental Education III, the workshop on assessment was designed to continue the discussion started in 2017 at the ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education II.1 The focus of the 2019 conference involved examining the potential of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and current thinking about workplace-based assessment (WBA) within competency-based education in the 21st century. Approximately 30 years ago, George Miller wrote about the assessment of competence in medical education and challenged faculty to reach for higher levels of assessment than knowledge or skill.2 Acknowledging that no one assessment method can result in a valid assessment of competence, Miller proposed a four-level framework for assessment. The lowest level involves measuring what students know ("knows"), followed by assessment of the skill with which knowledge is applied in relevant tasks or problems ("knows how"). Next is an assessment of task performance in standardized settings ("shows how"), and finally, the highest level assesses the student's performance in the unstandardized clinical workplace ("does"). The 2019 assessment workshop focused on advances in the assessment of learners in the unstandardized workplace-the highest level of Miller's assessment pyramid ("does"). Research has shown that dental education has struggled to implement assessment strategies that meet this level.3 The workshop brought together individuals from around the world, with an interest in assessment in dental education, to consider how assessment in the "does" level, specifically EPAs and WBA, factors into competence assessment in dentistry/dental education.

ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education III: From interprofessional education to transprofessional learning: Reflections from dentistry, applied linguistics, and law.

The World Health Organization has indicated that Interprofessional Education (IPE) occurs when "students from two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other".1 These IPE experiences are widely thought to provide students with the opportunity to learn and practice the knowledge, skills, behaviors and attitudes that will ultimately translate into the provision of safer, higher quality, team-based patient care when they become health care practitioners in collaborative care environments. At the joint American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) 2019 Shaping the Future of Dental Education III conference in Brescia, Italy, delegates explored the concept of transprofessional learning, where students learn skills across a wider range of professions than health professions alone. The workshop continued the dialogue that began during the 2017 ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education II conference in London, England as previously reported by Davis et al.,2 and explored the use of transprofessional learning through the lenses of dental education, applied linguistics education and law education focusing on the use of reflective practices. The workshop brought together educators from around the globe in a highly interactive setting where they had the opportunity to discuss and develop tools and practices for teaching reflective practice by using a transprofessional learning approach.

ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education III: The impact of scientific technologies and discoveries on oral health globally.

The central purpose of scientific research and emerging dental health technologies is to improve care for patients and achieve health equity. The Impact of Scientific Technologies and Discoveries on Oral Health Globally workshop conducted joint American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) 2019 conference, Shaping the Future of Dental Education III, highlighted innovative technologies and scientific discoveries to support personalized dental care in an academic and clinical setting. The 2019 workshop built upon the new ideas and way forward identified in the 2017 ADEE-ADEA joint American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) 2019 conference, Shaping the Future of Dental Education II held in London. During the most recent workshop the approach was to explore the "Teaching Clinic of the Future". Participants applied ideas proposed by keynote speakers, Dr. Walji and Dr. Vervoorn to educational models (Logic Model) in an ideal dental education setting. It is only through this continuous improvement of our use of scientific and technological advances that dental education will be able to convey to students the cognitive skills required to continually adapt to the changes that will affect them and consequently their patients throughout their career. This workshop was a valuable experience for highlighting opportunities and challenges for all stakeholders when aiming to incorporate new technologies to facilitate patient care and students' education.

ADEA-ADEE Shaping the Future of Dental Education III: Engaging with global networking to enable global oral health.

Global networking has been identified as an important method of enhancing health care education and services in the field of dentistry.1 The ability to share expertise, resources, knowledge, and experience to benefit all is highly desired among students, educators, health care professionals, and communities globally. Both our student and patient populations are dynamic societies that are becoming increasingly complex and facing growing needs and expectations, which is a constant challenge for educators and health care professionals to satisfy.2 The key question, stemming from the Global Networking (GN) workshop of the 2017 ADEE-ADEA Shaping the Future of Dental Education II meeting, was identified as, "How can dental educators around the world network to share ideas, experience, expertise, and resources to improve our curricula and teaching and learning environments for our educators, students, and communities that they serve?" The action plan devised by the GN workshop from the 2017meeting indicated two key steps in these early stages of setting up a global network: 1) "…grassroots participation for input and consumption of meaningful and needed content," and 2) "…advisors/consultants for organizational top-down guidance to define and maintain the global networking philosophy and platform…".1 The GN workshop of 2019 SFDE meeting aimed to deliver guidance and discussion with those experienced in engaging local communities from both a grassroots and an organizational approach.

Predoctoral Dental Education in Tooth Prognosis and Treatment Complexity: A Survey of U.S. Dental Schools.

The aim of this study was to determine the educational methods and tools used to teach tooth prognosis and treatment complexity determination in U.S. predoctoral dental programs. In 2018, an online survey was emailed to the academic deans of all 66 accredited U.S. dental schools. Of these, 42 schools responded (63.6%), and 36 schools completed the entire survey (54.5%). The methods reported for teaching tooth prognosis and case complexity determination varied widely among the participating schools. Among the respondents, 25% reported using the American Association of Endodontists' Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment, while 10% reported having no specific method for teaching prognosis. The most common method for teaching overall treatment complexity was the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index, which was used by 24% of the respondents. However, another 24% reported that their school did not have a specific method for teaching treatment complexity. Large percentages of the respondents reported that students sometimes or often made wrong tooth prognosis and case complexity determination (90% and 92%, respectively). The most prominent feedback provided by the respondents based on their experience was the importance of faculty standardization, the understanding of students' inexperience, and the need for an interdisciplinary approach. The majority of these respondents reported that their schools had specific methods of teaching prognosis and case complexity determination. However, there was a wide range of teaching practices related to the contents and levels of evidence.

Patient-Specific, Risk-Based Prevention, Maintenance, and Supportive Care: A Need for Action and Innovation in Education.

PURPOSE: To develop a competency-based curriculum framework for prevention, supportive care, and maintenance for use in educational and patient care programs and to seek consensus on an overarching competency statement that embraces these critical learning and patient care concepts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A preliminary survey of current preventive and maintenance practices in U.S. dental and prosthodontic programs was completed and summarized with quantitative analysis. The American College of Prosthodontists organized a one-day consensus workshop with 14 participants from various U.S. dental schools with diverse backgrounds to develop a curriculum framework. The curriculum framework was used in the development of a joint competency statement using an iterative, online consensus process of debate and feedback. RESULTS: The preliminary survey helped frame the initiative and identify potential educational needs and gaps. Consensus was achieved for a recommended competency statement: "Graduates must be competent in promoting oral health through risk assessment, diagnosis, prevention, and management of the hard tissue, soft tissue, and prostheses, and as part of professional recall and home maintenance." This competency statement complements the proposed curriculum framework designed around 3 domains-caries prevention, periodontal supportive care, and prosthesis supportive care-with a set of recommended learning objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) learning standards do not outline patient-customized, evidence-based recall and home maintenance programs that highlight prevention of dental caries, periodontal supportive care, prosthesis maintenance, and patient education. The proposed competency-based curricular framework serves as an initial step in addressing student learning and patient care within the context of a recall system and home maintenance program while offering schools the needed flexibility for implementation within their curriculum.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Recall and Maintenance of Patients with Tooth-Borne and Implant-Borne Dental Restorations.

PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth- and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. METHODS: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from 2 systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. RESULTS: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised of 1) patient recall; 2) professional maintenance, and 3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. CONCLUSION: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the 2 systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.

Clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne dental restorations.

PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. RESULTS: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.

Clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne dental restorations.

The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, and American Dental Hygienists Association, who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from 2 systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a roundtable discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the 2 systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.

A Systematic Review of Recall Regimen and Maintenance Regimen of Patients with Dental Restorations. Part 2: Implant-Borne Restorations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of implant-supported restorations, to standardize patient care regimens and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 10 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed to meet the objectives of this review. RESULTS: The initial electronic search resulted in 2816 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 14 articles that satisfied the study objectives. An additional 6 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 20 studies. Of these, 11 were randomized controlled clinical trials, and 9 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (15 out of 20) were conducted in the past 5 years and most studies were conducted in Europe (15), followed by Asia (2), South America (1), the United States (1), and the Middle East (1). Results from the qualitative data on a combined 1088 patients indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristic (type of prosthesis, type of prosthetic components, and type of restorative materials); (2) specific oral topical agents or oral hygiene aids (electric toothbrush, interdental brush, chlorhexidine, triclosan, water flossers) and (3) professional intervention (oral hygiene maintenance, and maintenance of the prosthesis). CONCLUSIONS: There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations; however, a considerable body of evidence indicates that patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong professional recall regimens to provide biological and mechanical maintenance, customized for each patient. Current evidence also demonstrates that the use of specific oral topical agents and oral hygiene aids can improve professional and at-home maintenance of implant-borne restorations. There is evidence to demonstrate differences in mechanical and biological maintenance needs due to differences in prosthetic materials and designs. Deficiencies in existing evidence compel the forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with implant-borne dental restorations.

A Systematic Review of Recall Regimen and Maintenance Regimen of Patients with Dental Restorations. Part 1: Tooth-Borne Restorations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of dental restorations on natural teeth, standardize patient care regimens, and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 15 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed in depth to meet the objectives of this review. RESULTS: The initial electronic search resulted in 2161 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 12 articles that met the objectives of the study. An additional 4 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 16 studies. Out of these, 9 were randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (14 out of 16) were conducted in the past 5 years, and most of the studies were conducted in Europe (10). Results from the qualitative data, on a combined 3569 patients, indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristics (adherence to recall appointments, type of restoration and type of restorative material); (2) agent (chlorhexidine, fluoride, triclosan); and (3) professional interventions (repeated oral hygiene instruction, regular oral hygiene intervention). CONCLUSIONS: There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with removable and fixed tooth-borne restorations; however, there is considerable evidence indicating that patients with tooth-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong dental professional maintenance to provide repeated oral hygiene instruction and regular oral hygiene intervention customized to each patient's treatment. Current evidence also indicates that use of specific oral topical agents like chlorhexidine, fluoride, and triclosan can aid in reducing risk for gingival inflammation, dental caries, and candidiasis. Therefore, these agents may aid in improvement of professional and at-home maintenance of various tooth-borne dental restorations. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, restorations, and treatment needs, the evidence compels forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne dental restorations.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Recall and Maintenance of Patients with Tooth-Borne and Implant-Borne Dental Restorations.

PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. RESULTS: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.