Marketing odontológico: análise de anúncios publicitários de acordo com código de ética / Dental marketing: analysis of advertising according of ethical code

Objetivo: avaliar os aspectos éticos relacionados à propaganda e publicidade veiculadas pelos cirurgiões-dentistas. Metodologia: estudo transversal que avaliou os anúncios publicitários de 40 consultórios e 17 clínicas odontológicas da cidade de Campina Grande, PB. Os anúncios foram analisados de acordo com o tipo de publicidade, com a especialidade apresentada pelo profissional ou clínica, com a apresentação de itens obrigatórios, itens permitidos e itens proibidos segundo as normas éticas da Resolução CFO- 118/2012. Os dados coletados foram registrados em formulário específico, inseridos em banco de dados do SPSS, versão 18.0 e apresentados por meio da estatística descritiva. Resultados: verificou-se que o meio de comunicação mais usado pelos profissionais da Odontologia é a placa, com 84,2%. Dentre os anúncios analisados, apenas 12,3% apresentavam todos os itens obrigatórios exigidos pelo Código de Ética Odontológica. O nome representativo da profissão "cirurgião-dentista" esteve presente em apenas 14,0% dos estabelecimentos pesquisados. Dentre os itens permitidos, informações sobre a área de atuação foram verificadas em 54,4% dos anúncios; entretanto, somente 3,5% dos anúncios apresentavam o título de especialidade. Quanto às infrações éticas, 5,3% dos anúncios apresentaram elementos proibidos pelo Código de Ética Odontológica, como imagens de "antes e depois" e modalidade de pagamento. Conclusões: os profissionais não estão respeitando as normas estabelecidas pelo Conselho Federal de Odontologia no que concerne à propaganda e publicidade.

Objective: the aim of this study was to evaluate ethical features concerning to advertising and publicity of dental establishments. Methodology: this cross-sectional study analyzed forty dental offices and seventeen dental clinics situated in Campina Grande, PB. Dental advertisements were surveyed according to the kind of publicity, dental specialty, mandatory items, elective items and banned items, according to CFO-118/2012 rule. Data were recorded in a specific form, entered into SPSS 18.0 database and presented using descriptive statistics. Results: the kind of publicity most prevalent on 84.2% dentistry establishments was signboard. Among analyzed announcements, just 12.3% show all mandatory items according Dental Code of Professional Conduct. The expression "cirurgiãodentista" (dentist) was present in a few 14.0% of surveyed ads. In case of elective items, occupation area informations were present in 54.4% of establishments, however only 3.5% of signboards present specialist titles. With regard to ethical violation, 5.3% of publicity exhibit some banned item, such as "before and after" and payment method. Conclusions: dentists are not complying rules preestablished by the Federal Council of Dentistry regarding the advertising and publicity.

Training, Practices and Difficulties of Dentists in the Care of Children and Adolescents with Special Needs in the Primary Health Care

Objective: To know the training, practices and difficulties of Dentists in the care for Patients with Special Needs (PSN), in the Primary Health Care (PHC). Material and Methods: This is a Cross-sectional study with 44 Dentists. Some of the variables analyzed through the questionnaire were: dentistry specialty, PSN definition, undergraduate discipline on the subject, accomplishment of PSN care, difficulties, referral and accessibility. Data analysis was performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and measures of central tendency and dispersion by Fisher's Exact Test (p < 0.05). Results: Only one professional investigated presented PSN Specialization. About 82.5% of professionals had graduation time of over 10 years, where 75% of professionals did not have Curricular Component (P=0.006) or training to deal with PSN (85.0%), despite working in primary care for more than 10 years (60%). The care of PSN in the Primary Health Care was performed by 77.5% of professionals, in which lack of care was justified mainly because dentists did not feel prepared to perform it (37.5%), and the main difficulty found in care, refers to the lack of cooperation of these patients (27.5%). All professionals reported to refer patients to reference services, but 12.5% did not perform a previous clinical examination in the PHC. The reference service most reported by professionals was the Dental Specialty Center (82.5%). Conclusion: Although the training received by professionals present deficiencies in relation to PSN, the majority reported to attend these patients in Primary Health Care Units, and considered to be able to supply their needs. The greatest difficulties found in the care of Patients with Special Needs are related to their approach. The lack of care of these patients was justified by the fact that Dentists did not feel prepared to perform.