Survey on the attitudes and perceptions of Swiss dental practitioners and dental students toward treating patients with disabilities and sensory impairments.

AIMS: This study evaluated the attitudes and perceptions of private dental practitioners (PPs) and students on treating patients with disabilities and sensory impairments. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multifaceted questionnaire was used to assess the participants' attitudes on providing care to persons with disabilities and sensory impairments [visual (VI) and hearing (HI)]. The survey evaluated different aspects of the participants' attitudes that included integrity, altruism, perceived barriers, and theory of planned behavior (TPB). One hundred twenty participants [students: n = 73, practitioners (PP): n = 47), with a mean-age of 27.7 ± 5.3 years, completed the survey (response rate: 100%). Fourth-year students scored better than the PP in integrity (p = .019). For altruism, the students scored better than PPs (vs. fourth-year: p = .009, vs. fifth-year: p = .031). There were no differences between the participant groups for the overall assessments of the TPB (p = .213), VI (p = .863), and HI (p = .261). CONCLUSION: Dental practitioners and students revealed a positive attitude, with few barriers, towards treating individuals with disabilities/sensory impairments and considered the training in the field of special care dentistry as a necessary part of the dental education. Furthermore, a demand for an increase in the hands-on practical experience in treating individuals with disabilities/sensory impairments during the undergraduate study curriculum was identified.

Reliability between the two-colour chewing gum and the gummy-jelly tests used for the assessment of masticatory performance.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of two methods used to assess masticatory performance and attempt to correlate them to achieve interchangeability between the methods. METHODS: Twelve healthy dentate volunteers (men = 6, women = 6; mean age = 28.3 ± 4.1) with no known dental or medical pathologies were requested to participate in this study. Each participant completed three masticatory performance assessments, including two two-colour mixing-ability tests using chewing-gums (CG: gum#1 and gum#2) and the gummy-jelly (GJ) test. For each method, participants created five samples each (total = 15 measurements per participant, gum#1 = 5, gum#2 = 5, GJ = 5). For the gum#1 and gum#2 methods, the predetermined chewing cycles were fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cycles, and for the GJ method, the time duration was fixed at 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 s. The parameter measures were submitted to Z-score transformation, and Bland-Altman plots were generated to graphically compare the differences between two techniques against their means. Additionally, mountain plot was used to assess the cumulative distribution of measurement error between the methods. RESULTS: A total of 180 measurements were recorded. There were significant correlations between the number of chewing cycles/chewing time and masticatory performance using the gum#1 (r = -.753; p < .001), gum#2 (r = -.838; p < .001) and GJ (r = .730). When all tests were considered together for each method, significant correlations were found (p < .001). A descriptive range of mean values aiming to produce reference value ranges for predictive purposes was achieved considering the interchangeably among the methods [CG = GJ (VoH-mg = dL): 10 cycle = 10 s: 0.329 = 110; 15 cycles = 15 s: 0.177 = 164; 20 cycles = 20 s: 0.130 = 205; 25 cycles = 25 s: 0.086 = 200; 30 cycles = 30 s: 0.077 = 267]. CONCLUSION: The strong correlations and high consistency between the two masticatory performance methods found in this study conclude that the two assessment methods are reliable and interchangeable. Further evaluations are warranted to arrive at a conversion formula for translation of the results between the two methods.