Search

In 2005, Public Act No. 161 (PA 161) was passed in Michigan, allowing dental hygienists to practice in approved public dental prevention programs to provide services for underserved populations while utilizing a collaborative agreement with a supervising dentist. The aims of this study were to assess how well dental and dental hygiene students and faculty members and practicing dental hygienists have been educated about PA 161, what attitudes and knowledge about the act they have, and how interested they are in additional education about it. University of Michigan dental and dental hygiene students and faculty members, students in other Michigan dental hygiene programs, and dental hygienists in the state were surveyed. Respondents (response rate) were 160 dental students (50%), 63 dental hygiene students (82%), 30 dental faculty members (26%), and 12 dental hygiene faculty members (52%) at the University of Michigan; 143 dental hygiene students in other programs (20%); and 95 members of the Michigan Dental Hygienists' Association (10%). The results showed that the dental students were less educated about PA 161 than the dental hygiene students, and the dental faculty members were less informed than the dental hygiene faculty members and dental hygienists. Responding dental hygiene faculty members and dental hygienists had more positive attitudes about PA 161 than did the students and dental faculty members. Most of the dental hygiene faculty members and dental hygienists knew a person providing services in a PA 161 program. Most dental hygiene students, faculty members, and dental hygienists wanted more education about PA 161. Overall, the better educated about the program the respondents were, the more positive their attitudes, and the more interested they were in learning more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Assess the ability of a panel of gingival crevicular fluid ( GCF) biomarkers as predictors of periodontal disease progression ( PDP). Materials and methods In this study, 100 individuals participated in a 12-month longitudinal investigation and were categorized into four groups according to their periodontal status. GCF, clinical parameters and saliva were collected bi-monthly. Subgingival plaque and serum were collected bi-annually. For 6 months, no periodontal treatment was provided. At 6 months, patients received periodontal therapy and continued participation from 6 to 12 months. GCF samples were analysed by ELISA for MMP-8, MMP-9, Osteoprotegerin, C-reactive Protein and IL-1 β. Differences in median levels of GCF biomarkers were compared between stable and progressing participants using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test ( p = 0.05). Clustering algorithm was used to evaluate the ability of oral biomarkers to classify patients as either stable or progressing. Results Eighty-three individuals completed the 6-month monitoring phase. With the exception of GCF C-reactive protein, all biomarkers were significantly higher in the PDP group compared to stable patients. Clustering analysis showed highest sensitivity levels when biofilm pathogens and GCF biomarkers were combined with clinical measures, 74% (95% CI = 61, 86). Conclusions Signature of GCF fluid-derived biomarkers combined with pathogens and clinical measures provides a sensitive measure for discrimination of PDP (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00277745). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) is considered to be fundamental in the treatment of periodontal disease. Advanced area specific instruments were designed to increase the clinician's ability to effectively access root furcation areas during NSPT. The purpose of this study was to explore clinical dental hygienists' familiarity, utilization, and perceived efficacy of advanced instruments in root furcation areas during NSPT. Methods A randomized sample (n=3,500) of licensed dental hygienists in Michigan was invited to participate in a paper-based, mail survey. The 10-item instrument consisted of demographic, multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Results A total of 1,156 surveys were returned; 858 met the inclusion criteria for a response rate of 24.5%. Respondents who graduated between 2010-2020 than those who graduated between 1990-1999 were more likely to utilize advanced instruments and those who graduated in 1989 or earlier (16.0% and 19.9% respectively). Respondents familiar with advanced instruments were more likely to use them in furcation areas during NSPT than those less familiar with the instruments (95% CI [18.1, 29.6], p<0.001). Respondents who perceived advanced instruments to be effective in furcation areas were more likely to utilize them (95% CI [1.0, 8.0], p<0.05) during NSPT. Most respondents indicated that they became familiar with advanced instruments during their dental hygiene education or through continuing education courses. Conclusion Familiarity with advanced instruments and perceived efficacy of these instruments for accessing root furcations increased the likelihood of clinical dental hygienists utilizing them during NSPT. Dental hygiene education and continuing education programs should continue to provide opportunities for students and practicing clinicians to learn NSPT instrumentation techniques utilizing advanced instruments designed for furcation access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Changes in dental hygienists' scope of practice in the United States (U.S.) are not independent of general dentists' attitudes and behavior related to dental hygienists' professional roles. The purpose of this study was to assess perceptions and knowledge of general dentists concerning the legally allowable duties of dental hygienists in their state versus the services they provide in their individual practices; the importance of dental hygienists' contributions to the practice; and how well dental hygienists interact with dentists and patients. The relationships between dentists' attitudes, and dental hygienists' actual behavior, the age of the dentist and the number of dental hygienists and dental assistants employed in the practice were also explored. Methods: Survey data were collected from 292 general dentists in the state of Michigan concerning their attitudes and behavior related to dental hygienists' scope of practice. Results: The average number of services dental hygienists provided in the practices surveyed were lower than the average number of services that dental hygienists are legally permitted to provide in the state of Michigan. The higher the importance dentists placed on dental hygienists' clinical and overall contributions to their practice and their patient management skills, the more diagnostic services and therapies the dental hygienists performed. The older the dentists were, the higher they rated the importance of dental hygienists' clinical contributions, their contributions for the provision of patient care, and the more often dental hygienists performed diagnostic and additional procedures. Conclusions: While dentists did not indicate delegating all of the legally allowable dental hygiene duties in their practices, they did indicate having a very high appreciation of the contributions of dental hygienists to their practice. The perceived value of dental hygienists' contributions correlated positively with the number of diagnostic and adjunctive services dentists delegated dental hygienists to perform in their practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]