Practice characteristics and views of dental hygienists in Lithuania.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the employment possibilities of Lithuanian dental hygienists. METHODS: The questionnaire asked about the demographics of dental hygienists, characteristics of practice, patient load, career intentions, opinion about dental hygienists workforce and the need of governmental workforce regulation. The study consisted of all licensed dental hygienists in Lithuania in 2018 (N = 1109). RESULTS: The final response rate was 52.1% (n = 578), 64% (n = 370) of respondents lived in the country's five main cities, and 73.5% (n = 425) worked in these population centres, with 94.3% (n = 545) worked in private sector. Over two-thirds of respondents said there was an excess of dental hygienists in Lithuania. Nearly 80% "always" or "sometimes" reported that they had insufficient patients, which may account for the prevalence of supplementary work (48.4%, n = 280), that is work as a dental assistant (67.9%, n = 190). Data obtained show that dental hygienists with less than ten years' experience were likely to work as a dental assistant (P < .05). Notwithstanding, 73.9% (n = 428) of the dental hygienists reported that they only want to practice their profession. Most (83.4%, n = 483) struggled to find dental hygienist work, and 70.5% (n = 408) wanted regulation of number of dental hygienists at a national level. CONCLUSIONS: The respondents suggested there is (a) a lack of dental hygiene patients, (b) available workload for additional preventive dental hygiene services, (c) pressure to search for additional work, usually as a dental assistant. Governmental support to optimally regulate oral health human resources is, according to most dental hygienists, an emphatic wish as a possible solution at national level.

Self-reported psychological problems amongst undergraduate dental students: A pilot study in seven European countries.

AIM: To map psychological problems amongst undergraduate dental students with a focus on different time points in clinical work in seven Eastern European and Scandinavian countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1063 3rd- and 5th-year dental students (response rate 70%) participated in this pilot study and completed a pre-tested, structured questionnaire, which collected information on sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported psychological problems. Data were analysed by bivariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: The majority of participants were female and were younger than male participants. Most participants, though more females than males, agreed that the clinical work of dentistry was psychologically difficult. Almost half of participants felt nervous before working with patients (N = 506, 48%) and experienced a lot of stress whilst working with patients (N = 488, 46%); almost one-third (N = 287, 27%) felt anxious/worried after working with patients. Being a 3rd- and 4th-year student (vs 5th-year) reduced the odds for anxiety after working with patients; being a 3rd-year student (vs 5th-year) increased the odds for stress whilst working with patients. Studying in countries other than Norway reduced the odds for stress whilst working with patients. Less than good self-perceived health, presence of psychological health complaints before starting dental education, female gender and lack of physical activity increased the odds for psychological problems. CONCLUSION: A high number of undergraduate dental students reported psychological problems in connection with clinical work. It is unlikely that "one size fits all"; therefore, further qualitative investigations on stressors in clinical learning environments should be done in order to design tailor-made supportive strategies.

Treatment procedures and referral patterns of general dentists in Lithuania.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The requirement for dental specialties and the number of specialists in each country depends on the content and execution of undergraduate dental education, the complex oral health care needs of the society and other factors. The aim of our study was to assess specific treatment procedures of Lithuanian general dentists and their need to refer patients to specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Census sampling was employed and the data collected by means of a structured questionnaire asking dentists about the frequency of specific treatment procedures they perform and the frequency of referrals they make to different dental specialists. The results are of a self-reported nature. RESULTS: From general dental practice, 76.3% of cases needing orthodontic treatment were referred to orthodontists. About half of patients needing specialized care were referred to periodontists (50.2%), orthopedists (46.9%) and oral surgeons (45.0). More than one-third (39%) of the cases needing specialist care were referred to endodontists. Only one-third of patients were referred to pediatric dentists. In about 60% of cases needing respective care general dentists extracted teeth and roots, made incisions in acute jaw infections and treated young children; in about half of cases general dentists performed complex endodontic manipulations and treatment with fixed and removable prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for Lithuanian dental practitioners to refer patients to all types of dental specialists. Undergraduate dental education program and postgraduate training should be more directed toward the extraction of teeth and roots, treatment of young children and provision of dental prostheses to patients.