Background: Dental fear and uncooperative behavior can hinder dental treatment quality. Pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PPSA) is used to facilitate treatment when the coping capacity is exceeded. Out-of-hospital PPSA has been associated with more adverse outcomes compared to when it is used in hospital-based settings. The updated Dutch PPSA guidelines have increased costs and raised concerns about the accessibility of specialized high-quality dental care for children in the Netherlands. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the updated 2017 guidelines on the occurrence rate of adverse events during PPSA in twelve Dutch dental clinics. Methods: The data of 25,872 children who were treated at twelve dental clinics between 1997 and 2019 were analyzed. A logistic two-level mixed-effects model was used to estimate the updated guidelines’ impacts on adverse events. Results: The OR of the occurrence rate of an adverse event adjusted for age, weight, and duration of treatment was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64–0.89) after the implementation of the updated guidelines. This outcome was significant with p = 0.001, indicating a protective effect. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that there was a significant reduction in adverse events after the implementation of the updated guideline and highlight the importance of adhering to evidence-based practices in out-of-hospital dental clinics.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the scope of dental hygiene practice was expanded in 2006. The objective of this study was to explore reasons among dentists and dental hygienists for supporting or opposing an extended scope of practice and to find explanatory factors.METHODS: A questionnaire containing pre-defined reasons and an open-ended question was distributed among 1,674 randomly selected members of two Dutch professional associations (874 dentists, 800 dental hygienists). Data were analyzed with binary logistic regression with Bayesian information criterion (BIC) model selection.RESULTS: Response were obtained from 541 practitioners (32.3%): i.e., 233 dentists (43.1%) and 308 dental hygienists (56.9%). Non-response analysis revealed no differences, and representativeness analysis showed similarities between samples and target populations. Most often, dentists reported flexible collaboration (50.2%) and dental hygienists indicated task variation (71.1%) as supportive reasons. As opposing reasons, dentists generally reported quality of care (41.2%) and dental hygienists' self-competence (22.7%). Reasons were explained by profession, gender, and new-style practitioners.CONCLUSION: Dentists and dental hygienists conveyed different reasons for supporting or opposing an extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Outcomes can be categorized as reasons related to economic, professional status, quality, job satisfaction, and flexible collaboration and are not only explained by profession.
DOCUMENT
Background: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
DOCUMENT
