ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: There has been little in the literature to date that speaks of an art of dental hygiene compared to science. Yet, science, conceived as the findings from research, does not apply itself; it is the knowledge, judgement and skill of practitioners to apply these findings in a particular setting that, at its highest level, informs artful dental hygiene practice. The purpose of this paper is to question whether an art of dental hygiene exists, if it is important, and how it relates to science. METHODS: The method used in the analysis contained in this paper is a dialectical approach used to examine contrary positions, i.e. whether art exists or does not exist, by outlining the structure of each position and clarifying explicit and implicit similarities and dissimilarities. A framework of conceptualizations of art from nursing has been used to examine dental hygiene literature for evidence of art. RESULTS: A preliminary conceptualization, substantiated within dental hygiene, sees the art of dental hygiene as abilities to grasp meaning in client encounters, establish meaningful connections with clients, perform dental hygiene actions skillfully and proficiently, rationally determine courses of dental hygiene action, and conduct dental hygiene practice morally and ethically. CONCLUSIONS: That an art of dental hygiene exists is not in doubt and the analysis is presented. To understand better how dental hygienists make practice decisions to develop this process to its optimum - the pursuit of perfection and excellence in dental hygiene practice, we must pursue understanding the art of dental hygiene practice.
Subject(s)
Dental Hygienists/education , Dental Prophylaxis , Clinical Competence , Decision Making , Dental Hygienists/ethics , Dental Prophylaxis/ethics , Ethics, Professional , Humans , Judgment , Morals , Patient Care Planning , Philosophy , Professional-Patient Relations , Research , Science/educationABSTRACT
Ten million third molars (wisdom teeth) are extracted from approximately 5 million people in the United States each year at an annual cost of over $3 billion. In addition, more than 11 million patient days of "standard discomfort or disability"--pain, swelling, bruising, and malaise--result postoperatively, and more than 11000 people suffer permanent paresthesia--numbness of the lip, tongue, and cheek--as a consequence of nerve injury during the surgery. At least two thirds of these extractions, associated costs, and injuries are unnecessary, constituting a silent epidemic of iatrogenic injury that afflicts tens of thousands of people with lifelong discomfort and disability. Avoidance of prophylactic extraction of third molars can prevent this public health hazard.
