Regulación de la implantología dental en México / Regulation of dental implantology in Mexico

Introducción: los implantes dentales se han convertido en uno de los tratamientos odontológicos con mayor demanda en todo el mundo, no sólo por el nivel máximo de funcionalidad y de estética, sino también debido a su estabilidad, osteointegración y facilidad en su rehabilitación. Es incierto si los implantes dentales se encuentran normados formalmente en México, lo que motiva a la revisión del estado actual. Objetivo: evidenciar el estado actual de la legislación de la práctica de la implantología dental en México a través de una revisión en la literatura. Material y métodos: revisión de las legislaciones existentes en México para la aplicación de implantes dentales y su contraparte en el mundo a través de la evaluación de normas expedidas en América y Europa. Resultados: se contabilizó un total de 17 escuelas de implantes dentales que cuentan con el reconocimiento de la Secretaría de Educación Pública, de las cuales tres son públicas y 14 privadas. Se presentó una discrepancia en los planes de estudio que va de 16 a 36 meses. Las escuelas no contaron con un aval normativo. Las normas internacionales para control de calidad y aplicación de la tecnología en implantes se ubicaron en Canadá, Estados Unidos, España, Reino Unido y Francia. Conclusiones: contar con un antecedente normativo establecido por los países de primer mundo y ausente en México permite evidenciar la necesidad de implementar una Norma Oficial Mexicana que regule la fabricación, distribución y almacenamiento de los implantes dentales en México. A la vez, la revisión sugiere que la Secretaría de Educación Pública norme los créditos mínimos necesarios en las instituciones educativas reconocidas para la formación de recursos humanos que ejercen la implantología dental (AU)

Introduction: dental implants have become one of the dental treatments with the highest demand in the world, not only because of the highest level of functionality and aesthetics, but also because of their stability, osseointegration and ease of rehabilitation. It is uncertain if dental implants are formally regulated in Mexico, which motivates the review of the current status. Objective: to demonstrate the current state of the legislation for the practice of dental implantology in Mexico through a review of the literature. Material and methods: review of the existing legislation in Mexico, for the application of dental implants and its counterpart in the world, through the evaluation of standards issued in America and Europe. Results: a total of 17 dental implant schools that have the recognition of the Ministry of Public Education were counted, of which 3 are public and 14 private. There was a discrepancy in the study plans that ranged from 16 to 36 months. Schools will not have regulatory backing. The international standards for quality control and application of technology in implants were located in Canada, the United States, Spain, the United Kingdom and France. Conclusions: having a normative antecedent established by the countries of the first world and absent in Mexico, allows to demonstrate the need for the implementation of an Official Mexican Standard, which regulates the manufacture, distribution and storage of dental implants in Mexico. At the same time, the review suggests that the Ministry of Public Education regulate the minimum necessary credits in recognized educational institutions, for the training of human resources that practice dental implantology (AU)

Karim Baksh v. Human Rights Commission.

KIE: The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, 7 May 1999 [date of decision], reversed a state Human Rights Commission decision that awarded damages to an HIV patient's estate for discrimination by a dentist who refused to treat him. In a case of first impression, the court determined that a dental office is not a "place of public accommodation" because dental services, like medical and legal services, were not intended to be treated by the legislature as trade, commerce, or business.^ieng

TB infection control recommendations from the CDC, 1994: considerations for dentistry. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Between 1989 and 1992, reports of outbreaks and transmissions of tuberculosis in institutional settings prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the guidelines for TB infection control it had published in 1990. The CDC published an updated version of the guidelines in October 1994. This article gives dentists an overview of the guidelines' recommendations that are applicable to most outpatient dental settings.

Letters from California--the safety police.

I am sure many people imagine the United States of America as the land of the free, where people can do what they want unfettered by unnecessary rules, regulations and taxation. Unfortunately, the truth is very different and there are as many rules and regulations in the USA as almost anywhere else, and in some cases they are more complex since regulations come from both the federal government and the state government. Both may pass similar laws which differ in small degrees so there may be considerable areas of overlap but also considerable differences between the federal and state regulations. For dentists, a particular area of concern in recent years has been the agency known as OSHA, the Office of Safety and Health Administration.