OBJECTIVES:

Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) is pivotal in patient care, reflecting oral health through dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs). This systematic review aims to outline the 4-dimensional (4-D) impact of OHRQoL within patient populations routinely treated by dental hygiene and/or dental therapy providers, as there is limited literature present for these oral health care professionals.

METHODS:

The study extracted and analyzed characteristics and multidimensional impact of OHRQoL, using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) as the primary dental patient-reported outcome measure (dPROM). The search strategy spanned 7 databases: Medline via the Ovid interface (Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL), Embase via Ovid, Cinahl, APA PsycINFO via Ovid, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Search, Scopus, and Web of Science (Core Collection). It commenced September 2, 2022, with a refinement search on July 5, 2023. English language criteria yielded 645 articles postduplication removal. A screening procedure involving 3 reviewers encompassed title, abstract, and full-text review.

RESULTS:

After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 5 articles were subjected to data extraction, capturing domain-specific information including baseline and follow-up OHRQoL data. An additional set of 13 articles containing summarized OHRQoL data underwent separate analysis. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools were utilized for risk bias assessment of the included articles. The 4-D impact scores reported for baseline OHRQoL data, ranged from 3.10 to 4.20 for Oral Function, 0.84-2.70 for Orofacial Pain, 1.70-4.50 for Orofacial Appearance, and 0.44-2.50 for Psychosocial Impact. In follow-up OHRQoL data, the range for Oral Function was 1.52-3.60, Orofacial Pain 0.60-2.10, Orofacial Appearance 0.91-2.25, and Psychosocial Impact 0.10-0.60.

CONCLUSIONS:

This review highlights a critical call for standardization in OHRQoL data collection for dental hygiene and dental therapy patient populations as only 26% of the predetermined distinct populations were found to have studies completed with 4-D impact of OHRQoL. Moreover, the presence of limited research in describing the multi-dimensional impact in patients routinely treated by these providers shows the urgency of substantive research in this area.

Educational preparation of dental hygiene students for hospital-based practice, and advocacy efforts promote inclusion of dental hygienists within hospital-based interdisciplinary health care teams.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

Although the value of attending to the oral care needs of patients in critical care units has been recognized, the potential impact of optimal oral health care for the general hospital population is now gaining attention. This article describes a hospital-based educational experience for dental hygiene students and provides advocacy strategies for inclusion of dental hygienists within the hospital interdisciplinary team.

METHODS:

The dental hygienist authors, both educators committed to evidence-based oral health care and the profession of dental hygiene, studied hospital health care and recognized a critical void in oral health care provision within that setting. They collaboratively developed and implemented a hospital-based rotation within the curriculum of a dental hygiene educational program and used advocacy skills to encourage hospital administrators to include a dental hygiene presence within hospital-based care teams.

CONCLUSIONS:

Hospital-based dental hygiene practice, as part of interprofessional health care delivery, has the potential to improve patient well-being, shorten hospital stays, and provide fiscal savings for patients, institutions, and third party payers. Advocacy efforts can promote dental hygienists as members of hospital-based health care teams. Further research is needed to document: (1) patient outcomes resulting from optimal oral care provision in hospitals; (2) best ways to prepare dental hygienists for career opportunities within hospitals and other similar health care settings; and (3) most effective advocacy strategies to promote inclusion of dental hygienists within care teams.

Purpose: Dental hygiene students nearing completion of their educational programs are required to take written and clinical examinations in order to be eligible for licensure. The written licensure exam, the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination (NBDHE), is administered by the Joint Commission of National Dental Examinations (JCNDE). Failing a licensing examination is a costly experience for students and has the potential for a negative impact on a program's accreditation status. Nursing programs have published extensively on strategies used to prepare students for licensure examinations. However, there appears to be a gap in the literature as to how dental hygiene programs prepare their students to take the NBDHE. The purpose of this study was to conduct a national survey of U.S. dental hygiene program directors to determine what strategies their programs employ to prepare students to take the NBDHE and to explore the viewpoints of dental hygiene program directors regarding student preparation methods for the NBDHE. Methods: An survey instrument was developed, pilot tested, revised and mailed to directors of the 335 CODA accredited U.S. dental hygiene programs. The survey consisted of a combination of response formats including forced choice, multiple allowable answered, and open-ended written comments. Results: A total of 154 surveys were returned, yielding an overall response rate of 45% (154/341). The vast majority of directors (93%) reported they use specific methods and practices to prepare students for the NBDHE. The top two strategies identified were dental hygiene review texts (84%) and a board review course (83%). The majority of directors (84%) reported supporting student participation in nonmandatory, commercial review courses. In regard to mock board exams, directors "agreed/strongly agreed" (75%) that the mock board exam is a useful coaching tool in the overall process of NBDHE preparations. A majority (65%) indicated they were not concerned with failure rates, and 43% reported failure rates do reflect on the program. Conclusion: These results suggest that the majority of dental hygiene programs are utilizing strategies to prepare students for the NBDHE with board review textbooks and board review courses named as the top two strategies.

This study examined the current status of geriatric curricula in dental hygiene programs in both the United States and Canada and was comprised of a twenty-six-item survey sent to dental hygiene programs. Responses (82 percent) revealed didactic requirements in 89 percent of programs and clinical requirements in 54.2 percent of programs surveyed. Mean didactic clock hours were ten (+/- 8.2), while clinical clock hours were 21.8 (+/- 27.5). Specific geriatric courses were found in only 18.8 percent of programs, while 81.2 percent integrated geriatrics with other coursework. Both clinical (98.8 percent) and didactic courses (81.5 percent) were taught primarily by dental hygiene faculty. Clinical experiences were primarily provided at extramural sites (79 percent). Half of schools surveyed (49.5 percent) felt their geriatric curriculum was less than optimal. The authors conclude that current levels of geriatric dental hygiene education may not meet the increasing demands of this growing population.

OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of the study was to measure the effectiveness of oral health education and training among caregivers.

METHODS:

Controlled study design. Participants were randomized from the sample n = 30. n = 14 participants in the experimental group and n = 10 in the control group. The experimental group received a lecture and hands-on training in oral hygiene procedures. The control group received a facilitated group discussion. Both groups received a pre-post test.

RESULTS:

Considering the two groups independently, using a paired t-test, the experimental group, n = 14 had a score difference of 0.0607 (P-value = 0.01) and the control group n = 10, had a score difference of 0.035 (P-value = 0.14).

CONCLUSION:

This study found that knowledge was improved among caregivers following the implementation of formal oral hygiene training. Although the control group also showed some improvements with the facilitated discussion, the results are not significant to say that both the formal training and the facilitated discussion are equally important in training caregivers effectively.

Although remarkable growth has occurred in the dental hygiene research arena, an increased emphasis on research development will facilitate the designation of dental hygiene as a true discipline.

BACKGROUND:

Dental hygienists have participated in research for nearly 100 years. Support for research development has increased due to contributions of the American Dental Hygienists' Association and other grant monies that have funded seminal educational endeavors to elevate the research skills of dental hygienists. Dental hygiene initiated research endeavors, the advent of doctoral degree programs in dental hygiene, expansion of the dental hygiene body of knowledge, and efforts toward interprofessional collaboration continue to elevate the profession of dental hygiene while addressing the oral health needs of the public.

METHODS:

The research focus in dental hygiene is reviewed. Landmark events that have supported research endeavors are described and examples of historically important global contributions made by dental hygienists are chronicled.

CONCLUSIONS:

Further development of a body of dental hygiene research will help position the profession alongside other academically recognized health care disciplines. A small, dedicated group of dental hygienists have worked toward advancing the profession in this way, but additional growth is essential if dental hygiene is to be considered a true discipline. One such initiative on the near horizon is the doctoral degree in dental hygiene.

Dental hygiene activities were developed as part of a randomized clinical trial designed to assess the safety of low-level mercury exposure from dental amalgam restorations. Along with dental-hygiene clinical work, a community programme was implemented after investigators noticed the poor oral hygiene habits of participants, and the need for urgent action to minimize oral health problems in the study population.

OBJECTIVES:

Clinical and community activity goal was to promote oral health and prevent new disease. Community activities involved participants and their fellow students and were aimed at providing education on oral health in a school environment.

METHODS:

Dental hygienists developed clinical work with prophylaxis, sealants application and topical fluoride and implemented the community programme with in-class sessions on oral health themes. Twice a month fluoride mouthrinses and bi-annual tooth brushing instructional activity took place. Participation at dental-hygiene activities, sealed teeth with no need of restoration and dental-plaque-index were measures used to evaluate success of the programme for the participants.

RESULTS:

Improvement in dental hygiene is shown by the decrease in dental plaque index scores (P < 0.0001); also sealants integrity is achieved in 86.3% of teeth. 888 (13.7%) teeth with sealants had to be restored or were lost. Children participated actively on dental hygiene activities. Teachers became aware of the problem and included oral-health in school curricula.

CONCLUSION:

Dental hygiene activities have shown to be helpful to promote dental hygiene, promote oral health and to provide school-age children with education on habits that will be important for their future good health.

Flossing is universally recognized in the dental profession as a primary component of oral hygiene. Data supports the correlation between flossing and disease prevention by ways of reducing gingival bleeding, gingivitis, and dental caries.(1, 2) However, a recent AP publication (3) questioning the validity of flossing as an efficacious preventative method has warranted that oral healthcare professionals address certain underlying assumptions about the practice. Specifically, there is a clear gap in the number of clinical effectiveness trials that measure the ability of flossing for the sole purpose of oral plaque biofilm removal. Such studies are urgently needed. At this moment we can only assume flossing's correlation with disease prevention also links flossing with effectively removing oral plaque biofilm. Due to the current research gaps, additional studies must be performed to address the needs highlighted by the absence of substantive research in this field. Our long term goal is to evaluate if flossing is an effective oral health aid in the removal of oral plaque biofilm. The overall objective of this application is to provide a consistent measurement to confirm whether flossing is an effective oral care technique in removing disease causing oral plaque biofilm . The rationale that underlies this proposal comes from the many professional associations, such as the American Dental Association, American Dental Hygienists' Association, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that endorse flossing as an effective home care routine in oral disease prevention. Many oral health professionals would argue that flossing is effective in plaque removal, as they have seen the results anecdotally year after year, yet it is clear that additional studies are needed to move what is known anecdotally to what is known scientifically.

The concept of gingival massage on maintaining the health of the gingiva may be of value as an adjunct in the periodontal maintenance phase of treatment. This study compared dental floss to a test product, a massage device, in a randomized population of 20 male and female subjects. Clinical measurements were taken at baseline, week 3, and week 6. Patients were instructed to brush twice daily using their normal hygiene methods and to use the assigned product once daily. Plaque index (PI), bleeding index (BI) and pocket probing depths did improve in both the control and the test groups, but the differences did not favor either group over the other. The gingival index (GI) did, however, significantly decrease in the massage group, suggesting that this product may not only be an alternative to dental floss, but may provide added benefits from gingival massaging.

Purpose: Commission on Dental Accreditation standards for dental and dental hygiene programs include interprofessional education (IPE) experiences within the curriculum; an initial step in the acquisition and application of IPE is for students to perceive it as relevant. The purpose of this study is to identify dental and dental hygiene students' attitudes regarding IPE following the completion of a novel interprofessional course involving health professional students from six different degree programs. Methods: Faculty members from the Schools of Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing, and Pharmacy designed a one-hour, required course focusing on collaborative practice, roles and responsibilities, teamwork, and communication. Students from six different professional programs were divided into interprofessional teams for the thirteen session IPE course. Upon completion of the course, all participants (n=487), were invited to complete an online course evaluation survey utilizing the Student Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education (SPICE-R2) instrument. A retrospective pre-test- post-test approach was used to assess attitudinal change. Results: A total of 300 students from the six health care professions (n=300) completed the SPICE-R2 pre- and post-test surveys for a response rate of 62%. In general, students reported significantly more positive perceptions about IPE after completion (M = 39.7, SD = 7.57) than they did prior to the course (M = 36.6, SD = 7.13), t(299) = -9.24,p < .001; and the effect size was moderate (Cohen's d = .535). One-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for student program on change in scores on the total SPICE-R2 scale. Although post- tests did not reveal differences between specific programs, dental hygiene students exhibited the greatest attitudinal change, while dental students demonstrated the lowest. Conclusions: Sample sizes from the six healthcare programs varied and serve as a limitation for this study. Findings suggest that dental hygiene students may perceive greater benefit from IPE because they see themselves as collaborative practitioners. while dental students may self-identify as leaders of the oral healthcare team. Further research is warranted to examine students' perceptions of IPE to determine the potential impact and success of these curricular activities.