Search

Abstract Background This position paper was commissioned by the European Association of Dental Public Health, which has established six working groups to investigate the current status of six topics related to oral public health. One of these areas is epidemiology of periodontal diseases. Methods Two theses "A systematic review of definitions of periodontitis and the methods that have been used to identify periodontitis" 1 and "Factors affecting community oral health care needs and provision" 2 formed the starting point for this position paper. Additional relevant and more recent publications were retrieved through a MEDLINE search. Results The literature reveals a distinct lack of consensus and uniformity in the definition of periodontitis within epidemiological studies. There are also numerous differences in the methods used. The consequence is that data from studies using differing case definitions and differing survey methods are not easily interpretable or comparable. The limitations of the widely used Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need (CPITN) and its more recent derivatives are widely recognized. Against this background, this position paper reviews the current evidence base, outlines existing problems and suggests how epidemiology of periodontal diseases may be improved. Conclusions The remit of this working group was to review and discuss the existing evidence base of epidemiology of periodontal diseases and to identify future areas of work to further enhance it.

Abstract Background New graduates in the UK presently spend one year in training as Vocational Dental Practitioners (VDPs) in preparation for primary dental care. There is a growing recognition that the emerging workforce has very different professional expectations to those of earlier generations, with implications for the profession, patients and the performance of health systems. The objectives of this study were to investigate why VDPs' in England and Wales perceive they chose dentistry as a professional career; how they perceive their vision has changed and the implications for their professional career plans, both short- and longterm. Methods Purposive sampling of schemes was undertaken to include urban, rural and metropolitan schemes, schemes in areas with and without dental schools and geographic coverage across England and Wales. All VDPs in these schemes were initiated to participate in this qualitative study using focus groups. A topic guide was utilised to standardise data collection. Informants' views were recorded on tape and in field notes. Data were transcribed and analysed using Framework Methodology. Results A total of 99 VDPs participated in the 10 focus groups. Their choice of dentistry as a professional career was motivated by multiple categories of influence: 'academic', 'healthcare', 'lifestyle', the influence of 'family', 'friends', 'careers advice' and 'work experience'. Consideration of the features of the 'professional job' appears to have been key to their choice of dentistry and the 'active rejection of medicine' as an alternative career. Entry into the profession was proving a challenging process for some but not all VDPs. Informants perceived that their vision had been moderated as a result of 'personal student debt', 'national workforce initiatives', 'limitations on clinical practice' and the 'cost of additional training'. Short term goals focused around 'recovery from the past' and 'preparation for the future'. Longterm goals covered the spectrum of opportunities within dentistry. Factors influencing VDPs longterm career plans fell into six main categories: professional, personal, financial, political, social and cultural. Conclusion VDPs chose dentistry because they perceived that it provides a financially lucrative, contained career in healthcare, with professional status, job security and the opportunity to work flexibly. They perceive that their vision is challenged by changes affecting education and the healthcare system. Longterm professional expectations were closely linked with their personal lives and support a vision of a favourable work/life balance.

Purpose: There is a number of systems for the provision of oral health care, one of which is the Nordic model of centrally planned oral health care provision. This model has historically been firmly based on the concept of a welfare state in which there is universal entitlement to services and mutual responsibility and agreement to financing them. This study reports and analyses oral health care provision systems and developments in oral health policy in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) since 1990.Material and Methods: Descriptions of and data on the oral health care provision systems in the Nordic countries were obtained from the Chief Dental Officers of the five countries, and contemporary scientific literature was appraised using cross-case analyses to identify generalisable features.Results: It was found that in many respects the system in Iceland did not follow the 'Nordic' pattern. In the other four countries, tax-financed public dental services employing salaried dentists were complemented by publicly subsidised private services. Additional, totally private services were also available to a variable extent. Recently, the availabilty of publicly subsidised oral health care has been extended to cover wider groups of the total population in Finland and Sweden and, to a smaller extent, in Denmark. Concepts from market-driven care models have been introduced. In all five countries, relative to the national populations and other parts of the world, there were high numbers of dentists, dental hygienists and technicians. Access to oral health care services was good and utilisation rates generally high. In spite of anticipated problems with increasing health care costs, more public funds have recently been invested in oral health care in three of the five countries.Conclusion: The essential principles of the Nordic model for the delivery of community services, including oral health care, i.e. universal availability, high quality, finance through taxation and public provision, were still adhered to in spite of attempts at privatisation during the 1990 s. It appeared that, in general, the populations of the Nordic countries still believed that there was a need for health and oral health care to be paid for from public funds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports a survey of the systems for the provision of oral healthcare in the 28 member and accession states of the EU/EEA in 2003. Descriptions of the systems were collected from the principal dental advisers to governments in the individual states. In many states these were the Chief Dental Officers (CDOs). In states without a CDO, descriptions were gathered from CDO equivalents or senior academics. A template (model description) was used to guide all respondents. Additional statistical information on oral healthcare costs and workforce was collected from the Council of European Chief Dental Officers, WHO and World Bank websites. The study showed that in broad terms there were six patterns (Beveridgian, Bismarkian, The Eastern European (in transition), Nordic, Southern European and Hybrid) for the administration and financing of oral healthcare in the expanding EU. The extent and nature of government involvement in planning and coordinating oral healthcare services and the numbers and pay of the oral healthcare workforce varied between the different models. The biggest recent changes in European oral healthcare were found to have occurred in Eastern Europe, where there has been wide scale privatization of the previously public dental services. However, most of the EU accession (Eastern European) states seemed to be slowly developing insurance systems to cover oral health treatment costs. In the existing EU/EEA, the public dental services such as those in the Nordic countries still have strong political support and some expansion has occurred. In Southern Europe public dental services seemed to have gained some acceptance for the treatment of children and special needs groups. In UK, which has a unique public dental service system, there are plans to make big changes in the delivery, commissioning and remuneration of dental services in the near future. Some EU member states which operate the Bismarkian system with health insurances offering wide population coverage, comprehensive treatment and benefits connected with frequent dental visits, were reported to be experiencing financial problems. The study also indicated that at present, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, where there is dynamic growth in the numbers of dentists, the overall size of the EU/EEA oral health workforce is expanding fairly slowly. Only a minority of member states appeared to collect data on uptake of services and care costs and there were great difficulties in assessing outcomes of care. The data on costs appeared to show wide variations from member state to member state in per capita spending on oral healthcare. In the majority of states, however, costs, especially those in the private sector, could only be estimated. Nevertheless, at a 'macro' level, the study indicated that, in 2000, the 28 member and accession states of the EU/EEA had a total population of 456 million and an oral health workforce of 900,000 (some 300,000 of whom were dentists) and that the cost of oral healthcare was about EUR 54,000,000,000. Conclusion: The study showed wide variations in oral healthcare provision systems between EU/EEA member and accession states and no evidence of harmonization in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]