Search

An increasing number of elderly patients requires dental care. The data concerning the medical risk profile of seniors consulting dentists are scarce. In this context, the comorbidity-polypharmacy-score (CPS) could be an effective clinical tool to quickly assess the medical status of elderly patients. The medical data from 648 patients (60 years and older) of two cohorts (Fulda group [Fg] and Marburg group [Mg]) from two maxillofacial surgical units were recorded using a standardised questionnaire and compared concerning the number of the regular medications and the CPS. No medication was needed in 57 patients and 311 took 1 to 4 medications per day. Polypharmacy (5 or more medications per day) could be observed in 280 patients. The average medication was 4.28 in the Fg and 4.57 in the Mg groups (p = 0.249). Antihypertensives and antithrombotics were the most common medications. The CPS was subdivided into three groups (minor, moderate, severe). In total, 332 patients belonged to the minor group and 80 to the severe group. The average CPS was 7.49 in the Fg and 7.99 in the Mg groups (not significant). CPS was strongly correlated with age (p < 0.001) but not with sex. The prevalence of elderly patients with polypharmacy presenting for dental care is increasing. Scores like CPS may be a useful adjunct for quantifying the burden of disease in the context of dental treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose To analyze the prescribing patterns of analgesics by dentists in Germany during an investigation period of five years in comparison to analgesic prescriptions by physicians and in relation to international prescribing data. Materials and methods We analyzed nationwide data of all prescriptions of analgesics and antiphlogistics (except strong opioids) on the basis of the annual reports of the German statutory health insurances from 2012 to 2016. The types of analgesics, the number of prescriptions and the prescribed 'defined daily doses' (DDD) itemized by dentists and physicians were analyzed. The results were compared with each other and assigned to international dental prescribing data. Results During the investigation period the number of dental prescriptions of analgesics decreased by 3.4%, on the part of the physicians the increase amounted to 10.4%. Ibuprofen is the first line analgesic in Germany, its share in the dental analgesic prescription volume increased from 61.9% in 2012 to 88.1% in 2016. In the international comparison it could be demonstrated that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) play the most important role in nearly all countries. Conclusions Continual training activities and international monitoring of dental analgesic prescription patterns are necessary to develop guidelines for the rational and appropriate use of analgesics in dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To analyze the structure of antibiotic prescriptions by dentists in Germany during a time-period of four years in relation to medical antibiotic prescriptions. Materials and methods We collected nationwide data from all statutory health insurances on dental prescriptions of systemic antibiotics from 2012 to 2015. The annual reports of the “Research Institute for Local Health Care Systems” (WIdO, Berlin) provided the basis for this longitudinal data base analysis. The types of antibiotics, the number of prescriptions and the prescribed 'defined daily doses' (DDD) were analyzed. The results were compared to antibiotic prescriptions of German physicians. Results An average of 8.8% per year of all antibiotic prescriptions is issued by dentists. The mostly prescribed antibiotic is amoxicillin. The share of amoxicillin on all dental prescriptions increased from 35.6% in 2012 to 45.8% in 2015 (p < 0.01). About three-quarters of all dentally prescribed DDD can be attributed to amoxicillin and clindamycin. On the part of the physicians the proportion of clindamycin is 18 fold lower than in the dental field. Conclusions Dental and medical antibiotic prescriptions in Germany show statistically significant differences regarding the shares of the prescribed antibiotics. In an international comparison the high proportion of Clindamycin in Germany is noticeable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician rating websites have been gaining in importance in both practice and research. However, no evidence is available concerning patients' ratings of dentists on physician rating websites. Objective: The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive analysis of the ratings of dentists on a German physician rating website over a 2-year period. Methods: All dentist ratings on a German physician rating website (Jameda) from 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The available dataset contained 76,456 ratings of 23,902 dentists from 72,758 patients. Additional information included the overall score and subscores for 5 mandatory questions, the medical specialty and gender of the dentists, and the age, gender, and health insurance status of the patients. Statistical analysis was conducted using the median test and the Kendall tau-b test. Results: During the study period, 44.57% (23,902/53,626) of all dentists in Germany were evaluated on the physician rating website, Jameda. The number of ratings rose from 28,843 in 2012 to 47,613 in 2013, representing an increase of 65.08%. In detail, 45.37% (10,845/23,902) of dentists were rated once, 43.41% (10,376/23,902) between 2 and 5 times, and 11.21% (2681/23,902) more than 6 times (mean 3.16, SD 5.57). Approximately 90% (21,324/23,902, 89.21%) of dentists received a very good or good overall rating, whereas only 3.02% (721/23,902) were rated with the lowest scores. Better ratings were given either by female or older patients, or by those covered by private health insurance. The best-rated specialty was pediatric dentistry; the lowest ratings were given to orthodontists. Finally, dentists were rated slightly lower in 2013 compared to 2012 (P=.01). Conclusions: The rise in the number of ratings for dentists demonstrates the increasing popularity of physician rating websites and the need for information about health care providers. Future research should assess whether social media, especially Web-based ratings, are suitable in practice for patients and other stakeholders in health care (eg, insurance providers) to reflect the clinical quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]