Dental Prosthetists Research Articles

Australian dental practitioner attitudes to expanding Medicare to include more dental services.

The exclusion of dentistry from Medicare in Australia means there is limited public funding available to address widespread disparities in access to dental care, which is provided predominantly by private practitioners. The aim of this study was to investigate dental practitioners' attitudes towards expanding Medicare to include more dental services. An online survey was distributed to Australian dental practitioners between November 2024 and February 2025. The survey collected demographic information and assessed support for various models of Medicare expansion and perceptions related to affordability and access. A total of 447 dental practitioners completed the survey. Overall, 64.7% supported expanding Medicare to include more dental services, with higher support amongst females, non-dentists (oral health therapists, dental therapists, dental hygienists and dental prosthetists), those with more experience, and practitioners in regional/remote areas or the public sector. Respondents reported a significant proportion of their patients faced challenges affording dental care. Practitioners favoured means-tested and capped schemes that included diagnostic, preventive, restorative and periodontal treatments. Tensions between social responsibility and business imperatives were evident, with concerns raised about the impact on income, potential for overservicing, and the need for appropriate oversight. There was strong support from dental practitioners for expanding Medicare to include more dental services, particularly to financially disadvantaged patient groups with targeted and capped schemes and a focus on essential dental care. This study reinforces the need to reform the dental care system in Australia and take steps towards universal health coverage for dental services to address disparities in access and health outcomes.

Assessment of pediatric mandibular fracture management in France.

Assessment of pediatric mandibular fracture management in France.

ASEPSIS BETWEEN THE DENTAL OFFICE AND LABORATORY: A TUNISIAN CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Introduction: For a long time, the prevention of cross-contamination in dentistry has mainly been concentrated in the operating room. Activity related to laboratory work, a potential source of pathogen transmission, is therefore often overlooked. In addition, the practice of prosthodontics often gives the impression that aseptic measures cannot be rigorously applied. Several factors account for this situation. Designing a prosthesis involves handling a certain number of potentially contaminated and heat-sensitive objects (prostheses, impressions, wax tubes, occlusion bites, etc.). The items transferred between the dental office and the dental laboratory as well as the prosthetic instruments constitute the main chain of cross contamination in prosthodontics. Thus, an evaluation of the dentists and prosthetists’ compliance with regard to their asepsis through a cross-sectional study was necessary. Methods: two anonymous questionnaires were distributed. The first was among the dentists and the second to dental prosthetists in the public and private sectors. Results: From the 302 questionnaires distributed, only 220 were filled-in. 78% of the dentists and 37% of the prosthetists know the disinfection protocol of reusable instrumentation. 80.3% of the dentists and 74.1% of the prosthetists disinfect their prosthetic work but with varying percentages according to the group of items (impressions, prosthesis, etc.). 71.5% of the practitioners and 18.5% of the technicians disinfect their laboratory instruments systematically. However, 45% of the dentists and 54% of the prosthetists think they are not exposed to infections. Discussion: The results showed an insufficient level of knowledge and compliance to ensure asepsis of the prosthetic work both in the public and private sectors, contributing to a relatively high level of exposure to infections compared to a Canadian study. Conclusion: Given the insufficient compliance and in order to remedy these deficiencies, a simple decontamination protocol is suggested. Improving awareness and providing continuous training are then required.

Operators matter – An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning

Operators matter – An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning

Complaints about dental practitioners: an analysis of 6 years of complaints about dentists, dental prosthetists, oral health therapists, dental therapists and dental hygienists in Australia

Complaints about dental practitioners: an analysis of 6 years of complaints about dentists, dental prosthetists, oral health therapists, dental therapists and dental hygienists in Australia

Complaints about dental practitioners: an analysis of 6 years of complaints about dentists, dental prosthetists, oral health therapists, dental therapists and dental hygienists in Australia

BackgroundPrevious research has found dental practitioners at elevated risk of complaint compared with other health professions. This study aimed to describe the frequency, nature and risk factors for complaints involving dental practitioners.MethodsWe assembled a national dataset of complaints about registered health practitioners in Australia between January 2011 and December 2016. We classified complaints into 23 issues across three domains: health, performance and conduct. We compared rates of complaints about dental practitioners and other health practitioners. We used negative binomial regression analysis to identify factors associated with complaints.ResultsDental practitioners made up 3.5% of health practitioners, yet accounted for approximately 10% of complaints. Dental practitioners had the highest rate of complaints among fourteen health professions (42.7 per 1000 practitioners per year) with higher rates among dentists and dental prosthetists than allied dental practitioners. Male practitioners were at a higher risk of complaints. Most complaints about dentists related to treatments and procedures (59%). Around 4% of dentists received more than one complaint, accounting for 49% of complaints about dentists. In 60% of closed cases no regulatory action was required. Around 13% of complaints resulted in restrictive actions, such as conditions on practice.ConclusionImproved understanding of patterns may assist regulatory boards and professional associations to ensure competent practice and protect patient safety.

Anatomical sciences: A foundation for a solid learning experience in dental technology and dental prosthetics

Basic science courses are extremely important as a foundation for scaffolding knowledge and then applying it in future courses, clinical situations as well as in a professional career. Anatomical sciences, which include tooth morphology, oral histology, oral embryology, and head and neck anatomy form a core part of the preclinical courses in dental technology programs. In this article, the importance and relevance of anatomical sciences to dental personnel with no direct contact with patients (dental technicians) and limited discipline related contact with patients (dental prosthetists) is highlighted. Some light is shed on the role of anatomical sciences in the pedagogical framework and its significance in the educational process and interprofessional learning of dental technicians and prosthetists using oral biology as an example in the dental curriculum. To conclude, anatomical sciences allow dental technicians and prosthetists to a gain a better insight of how tissues function, leading to a better understanding of diagnosis, comprehensive treatment planning and referrals if needed. Patient communication and satisfaction also increases as a result of this deep understanding of oral tissues. Anatomical sciences bridge the gap between basic science, preclinical, and clinical courses, which leads to a holistic approach in patient management. Finally, treatment outcomes are positively affected due to the appreciation of the macro and micro structure of oral tissues. Anat Sci Educ 10: 395-404. © 2016 American Association of Anatomists.

Views of Australian dental practitioners towards rural recruitment and retention: a descriptive study

BackgroundDespite an increase in the supply of dental practitioners in Australia in recent years, there remains an unequal distribution of dental practitioners with more dental practitioners working in city areas. This is in part due to difficulties in attracting and retaining dental practitioners to rural practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of Australian dental practitioners towards what may attract them to rural areas and why they may remain in them.MethodA descriptive study, utilising telephone, semi-structured interviews with dental practitioners across Australia. Dental practitioners were recruited through their professional associations. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis.ResultsFifty participants; 34 dentists, eight oral health therapists, and eight dental prosthetists working in rural and urban areas of Australia. Four main themes were identified: Business Case: concerns related to income and employment security, Differences in Clinical Practices: differences in clinical treatments and professional work, Community: fitting in and belonging in the area in which you live and work, and Individual Factors: local area provision for lifestyle choices and circumstances. The most influential of these themes were business case and individual factors. Smaller rural areas, due to low populations and being unable to provide individuals with their lifestyle needs were considered unappealing for dental practitioners to live. Previous experience of rural areas was highly influential.ConclusionsThe main factors influencing rural recruitment and retention were income sustainability and employment security, and individual factors. Dental practitioners felt that it was harder to earn a sustainable income and provide quality lifestyles for their family in rural areas. Previous experience of rural areas was influential towards long-term rural retention. These factors should be considered in order to develop effective strategies to address the unequal distribution of dental practitioners.

Dental demographics and metrics of oral diseases in the ageing Australian population.

One of the biggest challenges currently facing the dental profession in Australia is the provision of quality and timely dental care to the elderly. Adults aged 65+years are an exponentially growing section of the community with rapidly changing dental needs, thanks in part to improvements in oral health over the past 60years that have resulted in a dramatically decreased rate of edentulism and subsequently an increased number of teeth present. This is a challenge not only for the public dental services, but also public health policy makers, private dental practitioners, professional organizations and dental education providers. It is an issue that crosses a range of dental care providers, not only dentists but also dental prosthetists and dental hygienists, whose role in the provision of dental services has been slowly growing in Australia. Furthermore, with evidence of links between oral and systemic health, this issue has significant impacts for the broader health system.

Regional use of the Australian Chronic Disease Dental Scheme.

To determine whether a different number and type of services were provided in Australian regional areas under the Australian Government-funded Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS). Retrospective analysis of administrative payments data. Australia. Patients receiving dental services under the Medicare CDDS. The CDDS. Number and type of services. CDDS service categories Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) regions were collected by the Australian Department of Human Services between 2008 and 2013 and compared by Australian Bureau of Statistics ASGS estimated resident regional 2011 population, and by employed number of dentists, dental specialists and dental prosthetists from the 2011 National Health Workforce Dataset. Number of services provided was greatest in major cities (79.0%), followed by inner regional (15.4%), outer regional (5.2%) and remote/very remote Australia (0.4%). Number of services per head of population decreased from 1.088 in major cities to 0.16 in remote/very remote areas. Number of services provided per dental practitioner showed minimal variation between major city (1672), inner (1777) and outer regional (1627) areas, but was lower in remote/very remote areas (641). Crown and bridge, periodontic, endodontic and removable prostheses per dental practitioner were most frequently supplied in the major cities, but restorative care and oral surgery were more frequently supplied in inner and outer regional areas. The number of CDDS services provided declined with regional remoteness. There was a marked difference in the utilisation of the scheme between major cities and remote/very remote areas in both number and type of service levels.

Dental prosthetist experience with oral mucosal screening and referral.

This study aimed to investigate dental prosthetists' experiences with screening and referral for suspicious oral mucosal pathology. Questionnaires regarding oral mucosal screening and referral were mailed to 300 randomly selected dental prosthetists in Australia for selfcompletion. Non-responders were sent replacement questionnaires up to three times, according to the Dillman method. A total of 179 prosthetists returned completed questionnaires resulting in a response rate of 64.9% after excluding 24 due to incorrectly listed addresses. Most participants reported that they checked all new patients for oral mucosal pathology (99.4%) and most reported that they checked all recall patients for mucosal pathology (86%). Most participants had detected a suspicious lesion (86%) and most had referred for a suspicious lesion (77.3%). Australian dental prosthetists appear motivated to perform oral mucosal screening and will refer suspicious oral mucosal pathology when detected.

An analysis of complaints against Victorian dental care providers 2000–2004

There are little data available on the number and type of complaints made against dental care providers in Australia, despite anecdotal reports of an increasing trend in health-related complaints and litigation. Data were obtained from the Dental Practice Board of Victoria on complaints received between July 2000 and December 2004. There were 651 complaints against all dental care providers in the study period, which equates to a rate of 4.1 complaints per 100 dental care providers per year. Dentists were responsible for 490 of the complaints, with 66 complaints against dental prosthetists and 43 complaints against dental specialists. There were very few complaints against dental therapists and students, and no complaints against dental hygienists, with 47 complaints against unregistered people or institutions. This study found that there was a relatively low rate of complaints made against dental care providers in Victoria, with most occurring against dentists in private practice in Melbourne. Less that 10 per cent of complaints resulted in an adverse finding against the dental care provider.

ORAL HEALTH CARE AND PROFESSIONAL ABSTINENCE

In the May 2004 issue of the Journal, Lamster1 and Formicola et al.2 lament the sorry status of oral health and oral health care for major segments of our population, specifically, poor children, the elderly, the institutionalized, and the uninsured. They state the usual pious platitudes—the “shoulds” and the “oughts”—without recognizing the contributing deficiencies in dental education and training that are perpetuated by organized dentistry’s unflagging resistance to fundamental change. So long as filling a tooth and making a denture are considered doctoral-level activities, dentistry will not escape its persistent regressive character and will not be able to adequately serve the public need. More than 80 years ago, New Zealand began to use school dental nurses, highly trained dental technicians assigned to public elementary schools to provide basic preventive and restorative (filling) treatment. These dental nurses are supported by nurse supervisors and by public health and private dentists as needed. Also in New Zealand, and in other countries, dental prosthetists provide dentures much as orthopedic technicians construct artificial limbs. Periodic efforts by US state and federal public health agencies to implement programs employing dental nurses, now called dental therapists, have been squashed by the American Dental Association, despite the documented success of such programs in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and many developing countries.3 The Alaska Native Tribal Health Corsortium is currently initiating a dental therapist program for the Alaskan Eskimo population despite the opposition of the American Dental Association. The use of such sophisticated technicians in the United States would allow dentists to be trained as complete specialists in stomatology. Instead, dentistry is becoming more and more specialized, to the point of absurdity. Filling the root canal of a tooth (endodontics) and filling children’s teeth (pediatric dentistry) do not require specialized knowledge and techniques, thus qualifying as true specialties, but are merely “limited practices.” The result of the existing overspecialization is to restrict the supply of competent general practitioners, to restrict access, and to increase the cost of these services to the point where only the insured and the wealthy can readily afford them. It is a puzzle and a disgrace that the American Journal of Public Health could devote so much space to oral health care issues in this country without referring to the more obvious deficiencies and their resolution, or to the flagrant fraud and abuse in functionally unnecessary treatment and overcharging that is rampant in dentistry.4

The dental workforce in New South Wales

Dental services in Australia account for about five percent of national health expenditures and 0.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. The workforce required to deliver these dental services comprises dentists, dental specialists, dental therapists, dental hygienists, dental prosthetists, dental chairside assistants, receptionists and dental technicians.

Full Denture Construction from the Obtaining of the Centric Maxillomandibular Record to Completion of the Dentures

Full Denture Construction from the Obtaining of the Centric Maxillomandibular Record to Completion of the Dentures