Variation in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at US dental school clinics.

PURPOSE: Although the threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was the same at different US dental schools, the response wasn't. There is no study that documents the variation in mitigation strategies, COVID-19 transmission, and clinical educational changes at US Dental schools during the ongoing pandemic that began in 2020 in the US. METHODS: The current study was approved as exempt research (project number HUM00199261). Our survey of Associate Dean's of Clinical Operations was individually emailed in July 2021. There were no reminders and descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: We received 46 completed surveys from the 68 sent out. Note that 65.2% of respondents reported requiring N95 masks for aerosol-generating procedures. Note that 38.9% of respondents said they required student partnering as chairside dental assistants for aerosol-generating procedures. Note that 37.7% of respondents began using alternate cubicles. A total of 6.52% of schools reported a transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus from patient to provider. There were no reported transmissions from provider to patient or from patient to patient. CONCLUSION: In our study, we found a lot of similarities between the approach taken by Dental School Clinics across the US to mitigate the risks of COVID-19, however, we also observed many differences.

Association between the COVID-19 outbreak and opioid prescribing by U.S. dentists.

BACKGROUND: U.S. data on opioid prescribing by dentists are limited to 2019. More recent data are needed to understand the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on dental opioid prescribing, characterize current practices, and determine if dental opioid stewardship initiatives are still warranted. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 outbreak and the rate of opioid prescribing by U.S. dentists. METHODS: During February-April 2023, the authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed in U.S. retail pharmacies. The authors calculated the monthly dental opioid dispensing rate, defined as the monthly number of dispensed opioid prescriptions from dentists per 100,000 U.S. individuals, during January 2016-February 2020 and June 2020-December 2022. To prevent distortions in trends, data from March-May 2020, when dental opioid dispensing declined sharply, were excluded. Using linear segmented regression models, the authors assessed for level and slope changes in the dental opioid dispensing rate during June 2020. RESULTS: Analyses included 81,189,605 dental opioid prescriptions. The annual number of prescriptions declined from 16,105,634 in 2016 to 8,910,437 in 2022 (-44.7%). During January 2016-February 2020, the dental opioid dispensing rate declined -3.9 (95% CI: -4.3, -3.6) per month. In June 2020, this rate abruptly increased by 31.4 (95% CI: 19.3, 43.5) and the monthly decline in the dental opioid dispensing rate slowed to -2.1 (95% CI: -2.6, -1.6) per month. As a result, 6.1 million more dental opioid prescriptions were dispensed during June 2020-December 2022 than would be predicted had trends during January 2016-February 2020 continued. DISCUSSION: U.S. dental opioid prescribing is declining, but the rate of this decline slowed after the COVID-19 outbreak. Findings highlight the continued importance of dental opioid stewardship initiatives.

Adverse Events Related to Direct-To-Consumer Sequential Aligners-A Study of the MAUDE Database.

Background-Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sequential aligners promote "teeth straightening" at a low cost and with added patient convenience. DTC sequential aligners have risen in popularity among the general public and sparked debate among dental professionals. Dental professionals argue that using these aligners without an in-person diagnosis and treatment planning protocol set by a licensed dentist or orthodontist may lead to adverse effects on teeth and surrounding structures. The objective of this study is to describe adverse clinical events associated with the use of DTC sequential aligners as reported in the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (FDA MAUDE) database. Methods-We searched the MAUDE database from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2020 for the product code of 'NXC' (sequential aligners). The year, type of adverse event, reporter occupation, and event description were noted. Results-651 reports associated with sequential aligners were found, of which 104 were related to DTC sequential aligners. Fifty-four adverse events were reported in 2019. From the event description, 41.3% comprised bite problems, 29.8% comprised orofacial pain, and 26.6% of patients had some form of periodontal sequelae. Furthermore, 69.2% of the patients followed up after an adverse event with a dentist not associated with DTC aligners. Conclusions-The use of DTC sequential aligners without dental supervision has led to oral health problems, as documented in the MAUDE database. Commonly reported adverse events include bite problems, pain, sensitivity, and periodontal disease, and some adverse events are irreversible.

Association Between State Opioid Prescribing Limits and Duration of Opioid Prescriptions From Dentists.

Importance: In part to prevent the harms associated with dental opioid prescriptions, most states have enacted policies limiting the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. Whether these limits are associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions written by dentists is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between state opioid prescribing limits and the duration of opioid prescriptions from dentists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This difference-in-differences cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, an all-payer database reporting prescription dispensing from 92% of retail pharmacies in the US. The sample included opioid prescriptions from dentists dispensed to children aged 0 to 17 years and adults 18 years or older from January 2014 through February 2020. Treatment states were those that implemented limits between January 2016 and December 2018. Control states were those that did not implement limits during the study period. Data on opioid prescribing limits were derived from the Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System. Data were analyzed from January 1 to September 30, 2022. Exposures: State opioid prescribing limits. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was opioid prescription duration, as measured by days' supply. The association between limits and duration was evaluated using a linear model with a 2-way fixed-effects specification. Covariates included patient characteristics, prescription characteristics, and indicators of implementation of prescription drug monitoring program use mandates. Separate analyses of data from adults and children were conducted owing to differences in the number of treatment states and restrictiveness of limits by age. Results: The adult analysis included 56 607 314 opioid prescriptions for 34 364 775 patients (18 448 788 females [53.7%]; mean [SD] age at the earliest fill, 44.0 [17.4] years) in 22 treatment states and 12 control states. The child analysis included 3 720 837 opioid prescriptions for 3 165 880 patients (1 740 449 females [55.0%]; mean [SD] age at the earliest fill, 14.4 [3.5] years) in 23 treatment states and 12 control states. In both analyses, the median (25th-75th percentile) duration of opioid prescriptions was 3.0 (2-5) days. Implementation of limits, most of which allowed up to a 7-day supply of opioids, was not associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions for adults (mean days' supply: -0.06 days; 95% CI, -0.11 to <0.001 days) or children (mean days' supply: -0.07 days; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.02 days). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of national pharmacy dispensing data, opioid prescribing limits were not associated with changes in the duration of opioid prescriptions from dentists. Future research should investigate the potential role of alternative interventions in reducing opioid prescribing by dentists.

Characteristics of students in International Dentist Training Programs versus applicants who are not yet successful in matriculating.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: For foreign-trained dentists who seek requalification in United States dental schools, the acceptance rate is half that of applicants to traditional 4-year DDS/DMD programs. Unsuccessful applicants also lack clarity on how to strengthen their re-application. This is a comparison of foreign-trained dentists who successfully matriculated into the University of Michigan's advanced standing program and prospective students who have yet to matriculate into any advanced standing program. METHODS: We collected data through a survey on the website of the University of Michigan program for foreign-trained dentists-the Synergy Program is tuition-free and helps International Dental Program (IDP) applicants navigate the application process. Secondly, we surveyed those enrolled in the University of Michigan's IDP. We compared various characteristics of these two groups. Thirdly, we convened focus groups among the University of Michigan IDP and had unstructured discussions about barriers faced by internationally trained dentists in entering an IDP. University of Michigan Medical School Committee on Human Studies determined this research is "not regulated". RESULTS: There were 2400 unique visitors to the Synergy website. Among respondents, 1490 were female (62.1%). A total of 10.1% reported spending over $30,000 on strengthening their application. There were 38 individuals (out of a possible 60) in the University of Michigan's IDP who responded to the survey and 28 were female (73.7%). A total of 31.6% reported spending more than $30,000 on strengthening their application. We had focus groups with 12 IDP students. Regarding perceived differences that led to acceptance, all participants described the advantage in having a greater familiarity with American culture. CONCLUSIONS: We found that those from wealthier households, those who are willing to spend more on their application process, and those who obtained an additional US degree were more likely to be matriculants in IDPs.

When standardized testing is not standardized.

Standardized testing has been utilized by K-12 schools, undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as employers. Historically, it has been seen as an efficacious way to identify the best performing candidates to receive program entry or move forward in a hiring process. However, there is significant evidence mounting about the limitations of standardized testing and, yet, we persist with them because of their relative ease. The purpose of this perspective paper is to begin a conversation about the place of standardized tests in dental education and its relationship to institution goals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Dean reported opioid and pain management curriculum in US dental schools.

PURPOSE: Dental students learn to prescribe pain management medications in dental school, including opioids. Given the current state of opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the US, dental schools should evaluate the context and implementation of opioid prescribing in their dental school clinics (DSCs). METHODS: A nationwide survey of deans of clinical operations at all US dental schools was conducted in 2020 related to pain management in their DSC. The Michigan Medicine Institutional Review Board deemed this study unregulated (HUM00151607). RESULTS: Of the 68 accredited dental schools in the United States, 26 deans of DSCs responded to the survey, yielding a 40% response rate. The survey results showed differences in the levels of education for dental students on opioid prescribing and patient education requirements. A comprehensive curriculum regarding safe opioid prescribing and patient education training was reported by 12 schools. Four dental programs did not have a single guideline or policy in relation to opioids for their dental students. CONCLUSION: The implementation of opioid prescribing guidelines and the surrounding context are different among DSCs, which could result in knowledge gaps and confusion for novice providers. Although many dental programs provide extensive opioid safety training, there is room for improvement and standardization to further advance patient care.

Estimation of the Prevalence of Delayed Dispensing Among Opioid Prescriptions From US Surgeons and Dentists.

Importance: Dispensing of opioid prescriptions from dentists and surgeons more than 30 days after writing, or delayed dispensing, could be a potential indicator that opioids were used for reasons or during a time frame other than that intended by the prescriber. The prevalence of delayed dispensing is unknown. Whether laws can prevent delayed dispensing by shortening the maximum period between prescription writing and dispensing is also unknown. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of delayed dispensing among opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists, assess the maximum period US states allow between controlled substance prescription writing and dispensing, and evaluate whether laws shortening this period decrease delayed dispensing of opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional analysis, data from the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (representing 63% of US prescriptions) were used to identify opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists dispensed from 2014 through 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Among opioid prescriptions dispensed in 2019, the proportion with delayed dispensing was calculated. Using legal databases, the maximum state-allowed period between controlled substance prescription writing and dispensing as of December 2019 was examined. Using a difference-in-differences design and 2014 to 2019 data, changes in delayed dispensing prevalence were evaluated among opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists after a Minnesota law was enacted in July 2019 precluding opioid prescription dispensing more than 30 days after writing. Control states allowed dispensing beyond this period. Results: In 2019, the database included 20 858 413 opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists for 14 789 984 patients; 8 582 029 (58.0%) were female. The mean (SD) patient age was 47.1 (19.3) years. Of prescriptions included, 194 452 (0.9%) had delayed dispensing. As of December 2019, the maximum period between drug writing and dispensing was 180 days in 18 and 43 states for Schedule II and III drugs, respectively. Compared with control states, Minnesota's law decreased delayed dispensing prevalence by 0.22 percentage points (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.13 percentage points). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, 194 452 opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists were dispensed more than 30 days after writing. To mitigate any prescription opioid misuse associated with delayed dispensing, policy makers could shorten the maximum period between writing and dispensing of opioid prescriptions from surgeons and dentists.