The history of the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund: wartimes and between - Part 3.

By the end of the 1910s, the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund was well-established and financially sound. Subscriptions and donations continued to grow but were never quite enough for the treasurer or indeed the committee, who were unable to fulfil all requests for help. Wartime restrictions on paper use meant that publicity was entirely in the hands for the editor of the British Dental Journal, as no separate annual reports were produced. Call-ups to military service decreased the numbers of volunteers willing or able to serve on the committee but applications for assistance in these years continued to grow. The introduction of the 1921 Dentist Act raised issues of resourcing and the future of the Charity for the committee. Novel fundraising suggestions were rife. Volunteer almoners were needed to monitor the increasing number of grant recipients.

The history of the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund: the post-war period - Part 4.

The final of these four papers charting the history of the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund ('the Charity') will examine the period from 1948 to the present, with attention given to the wider socio-economic environment. The Charity over this period has proved to be remarkably resilient and able to adapt structurally and technically to various challenges in the post-war period. Possible futures for the Charity will be examined and this paper will argue that the history of the Benevolent Fund suggests the way for dentistry in the UK to return to being a stable profession: a return to full self-regulation.

The history of the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund: the beginnings - Part 1.

The British Dental Association Benevolent Fund is a charity which exists to support all dentists, dental students and their dependents in times of hardship. For the past 140 years, the Fund has provided financial, educational and personal support to thousands of struggling members of the profession and their families. Its history is tied firmly to the development of dentistry as a profession, with the introduction of registration of dentists and with the creation of the British Dental Association. Those who had the vision for an association of dentists also saw it as an opportunity - perhaps a necessity - for a community of professional people to support each other in times of need. This paper describes the years before the foundation of the Fund in 1883, along with the attendant dental politics and the social environment into which it was born, as well as the very early years of the Fund itself. It is the first of four papers describing the history of the Fund, those who gave their time to manage it and those to whom it gave help.

The history of the British Dental Association Benevolent Fund: the first 30 years - Part 2.

The British Dental Association Benevolent Fund, founded in 1882, is a charity which exists to support dentists and their dependents in times of hardship. The foundation and early beneficiaries of the Charity have been described previously. This paper summarises the first 30 years of its existence, describing the nature of the work of the committee and its officers, those who were helped and the difficulties in raising sufficient funds from the profession in order to help all of those who applied for support.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes: Bivalirudin With Transfemoral Access Versus Heparin With Transradial Access in Patients With ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

INTRODUCTION: The best combination of access site and anticoagulant used during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is not known. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients >18 years of age who underwent primary PCI in 2 large regional ST segment elevation myocardial infarction centers in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2014. The cohort was divided into 3 groups: bival/fem, hep/rad, or off-protocol, based on anticoagulation and access used. We used multiple logistic regression model to compare major cardiovascular events-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding complications between the 2 on-protocol groups (bival/fem and hep/rad). RESULTS: Of the 1074 patients in this study, there were 443 (41%), 501 (47%), and 130 (12%) patients in bival/fem, hep/rad, and off-protocol groups, respectively. There were significantly higher number of cardiogenic shock patients in the bival/fem compared to the hep/rad group (6.5% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). There was a trend toward reduced MACE in the hep/rad group compared to bival/fem (2.8 % vs. 5.1%, P = 0.068). When cardiogenic shock patients are excluded, there is no significant difference in mortality rates (bival/fem: 2.7% vs. hep/rad: 1.0%, P = 0.07) or bleeding complications between the groups (hep/rad: 4.5% vs. bival/fem: 2.1%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary PCI, there was a trend toward reduced inpatient MACE with the use of heparin and radial access compared with bivalirudin with femoral access. In patients without cardiogenic shock, there is no significant difference in mortality or bleeding rates between the 2 groups.