Search

Papermaking is once again under consideration as a new market for waste textiles in the UK. Whereas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the driver was to provide a convenient and cheap form of cetlutose, now the need is to create markets for waste textiles that are disposed of to incineration or landfill, or which go to declining recycling markets such as wipers or mattress filings. Technical and economic issues are substantial and it may be that the end product of the papermaking process will not resemble the original product of 200 years ago. This article will consider the technical challenges and theoretical understanding of this re-innovation process. It will explore how the changing costs of environmental regulation compliance, and changing consumer preferences are leading to the revisiting of processes in the UK that were previously abandoned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate attitudes and approaches of UK primary care dentists to carrying out vital pulp treatment (VPT) after carious exposure and with additional signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis., Methodology: An electronic questionnaire was openly distributed via publicly funded (NHS) local dental committees, corporate dental service-providers, professional societies and social media. Principally NHS practitioners and those from mixed and private practice were targeted, in addition to community and military dental officers, and dental therapists. Participants were asked questions relating to several clinical scenarios, with responses analysed using descriptive statistics. χ 2 tests with sequential Bonferroni correction were used to explore variables including the method of remuneration, practitioner type (dentist/therapist), postgraduate qualification(s), place of graduation and years since qualification. Variables with a relationship p ≤ .2 were selected for backwards likelihood ratio logistic modelling., Results: In total, 648 primary care practitioners were included for analysis. Calcium hydroxide (CH) was most frequently used for direct pulp caps (DPCs) (398/600; 66.3%) with calcium silicate cements (CSCs) less frequently used (119/600; 19.8%). Rubber dam was used by 222/599 (37.1%) practitioners. A definitive pulpotomy for the management of teeth with signs and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis was selected by 65/613 (10.6%) dentists. The principal barrier for the provision of definitive pulpotomies was a lack of training (602/612; 98.4%). Regression analysis identified NHS practitioners as a good predictor for using CH for DPCs, having shorter emergency appointments, limited access to magnification and not using rubber dam. Non-UK graduates were more likely to select CSCs, appropriately control pulpal haemorrhage, undertake appropriate postoperative evaluation and use rubber dam., Conclusions: Practitioners deviated from evidence-based guidelines in a number of aspects including material selection, asepsis and case selection. A number of other challenges exist in primary care in providing predictable VPTs, including lack of time and access to magnification. These were most evident in NHS practice, potentially exacerbating existing social health inequalities. Possible inconsistencies in the UK undergraduate curriculum were supported by a lack of association between years since qualification and technique employed as well as the fact that non-UK graduates and dentists with postgraduate qualifications adhered more to evidence-based VPT guidelines., (© 2021 British Endodontic Society. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To investigate current approaches and attitudes towards the management of deep caries in primary dental care within the United Kingdom (UK)., Methodology: Open distribution of an electronic questionnaire survey was undertaken to primary care dental professionals working in publicly funded National Health Service [NHS], privately funded, military and community dental services. Demographic variables investigated included the following: place of qualification, method of remuneration, level of restorative training, materials available, years qualified, appointment length and clinician type. Management variables focussed on case-based scenarios. Univariate analyses of responses to questions were undertaken using χ 2 tests with sequential Bonferroni correction. Variables with a statistical relationship of p ≤ .2 were selected for binary logistic regression modelling., Results: A total of 657 responses were received. Practitioners with formal postgraduate qualifications (PGQ) were more likely (OR, 95%CI) to undertake further tests to aid diagnosis including: gaining a patient history (1.80, 1.01-3.20), periapical radiography (1.43, 1.01-2.03), cold pulp testing (2.079, 1.46-2.97) and electric pulp testing (1.65, 1.02-2.65). Rubber dam was infrequently used for deep caries management (29.2%). Non-NHS practitioners were much more likely to use rubber dam (3.40, 2.15-5.37), as were those that had completed PGQ (2.24, 1.48-3.38). Non-selective caries removal was used in deep caries by 41.4% of practitioners. Indirect pulp caps were carried out by 56.7% of practitioners. NHS practitioners were more likely to place calcium hydroxide (3.74, 1.97-7.15), whilst non-NHS practitioners were more likely to place calcium silicate cements (CSCs) (3.303, 1.71-6.38) as were non-UK graduates (5.63, 2.47-12.86) and those with PGQ (2.12, 1.17-3.87)., Conclusions: This UK survey highlights significant variation in the management of deep caries. There is lack of consensus regarding the use of a standard systematic approach to diagnosing disease, with a reliance on history and tests with poor specificity. Non-selective caries removal for managing deep carious lesions remains common, with low rubber dam compliance underlining a lack of asepsis. Notably, a significant number of practitioners placed indirect pulp caps, but CSCs and GIC were not commonly used. At present, although clear guidelines are available this is not translating into consistent management approaches in practice, suggesting that better dissemination of current treatments is essential to undergraduate and postgraduate groups., (© 2021 The Authors. International Endodontic Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Endodontic Society.)