Assessment of the quality of oral squamous cell carcinoma clinical records in oral surgery with Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Tool for Auditing Records scoring system [STAR] focuses on surgical record auditing with promising outcomes. It offers a structured approach to evaluating the quality of surgical notes. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the STAR in evaluating oral surgical records and identifying areas for improvement in documentation practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data was obtained from the Dental Information Archival Software (DIAS) of our institution. The sample size was determined using G*Power 3.1.9.4 software. Fifty consecutive oral surgery clinical records of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients were evaluated using STAR. Each record was reviewed for adherence to documentation standards including Initial Assessment (10 points), Follow-up Entries (8 points), Consent Documentation (7 points), Anesthesia Report (7 points), Surgical Log (9 points), and Discharge Synopsis (9 points). compiling a total STAR score (50 points). The data was tabulated in Google Sheets. The descriptive statistics with inter-observer agreement and the mean score were recorded. RESULTS: We observed that each of the 50 records received a score of 49/50 points on the STAR. Deductions were necessary in the Operative record section due to the lack of information regarding the sutures used. CONCLUSION: To summarize, this study emphasizes the effectiveness of the STAR scoring system in evaluating the quality of oral surgical records. Identifying deficiencies, particularly in documenting operative details, can improve the completeness and accuracy of patient records. It can ultimately enhance patient care and facilitate better communication among healthcare professionals.

Comparisons between photographic equipment for dental use: DSLR cameras vs. smartphones / Comparações entre equipamento fotográfico para uso odontológico: câmeras DSLR vs. smartphones

Objective: to compare the image quality obtained by six cameras used for dental documentation, including four DSLR cameras and two smartphones with different sensor size. Methods: the equipment determined the groups: APSCcan18-55 ­ Sensor APS-C Canon (EOS T5i) + 18-55 mm lens; APSCcan100 ­ Sensor APS-C Canon (EOS T5i) + 100 mm macro lens; APSCnik18-55 ­ Sensor APS-C Nikon (D5100) + 18-55 mm lens; APSCnik100 ­ Sensor APS-C Nikon (D5100) + 100 mm macro lens; ip1/3" ­ iPhone with 1/3-inch sensor; ga1/2.6"- Galaxy with 1/2.6-inch sensor. Two set of images -"dental documentation" and "small objects"- were obtained. The photographs were evaluated by three groups: US, undergraduate students; DS, dentists; and DP, dentists with photography experience. Scores between 0 and 10 were assigned. The results were compared by RM Anova and Tukey (α = 0.05). Results: the highest overall scores were obtained with APSCnik100 (8.5). For "dental documentation", APSCcan18-55 and APSCnik18-55 showed the lowest values, even compared to ga1/2.6" (for US, DS and DP evaluators) and ip1/3" (for US evaluators). For "small objects", DSLRs resulted in higher mean values compared to smartphones for US and DS. Conclusions: DSLR cameras with 18-55 mm lens and no circular flash should not be used for documentation photographs. DSLR cameras, regardless of lens, are superior to smartphones for small objects photographs. (AU)

Objetivo: comparar a qualidade da imagem obtida por seis câmeras utilizadas para documentação odontológica, incluindo quatro câmeras DSLR e dois smartphones com diferentes tamanhos de sensor. Métodos: a divisão dos grupos foi realizada pelo tipo de equipamento: APSCcan18-55 - Sensor APS-C Canon (EOS T5i) + lente 18-55 mm; APSCcan100 - Sensor APS-C Canon (EOS T5i) + lente macro de 100 mm; APSCnik18-55 - Sensor APS-C Nikon (D5100) + lente 18-55 mm; APSCnik100 - Sensor APS-C Nikon (D5100) + lente macro de 100 mm; ip1 / 3 "- iPhone com sensor de 1/3 de polegada; ga1 / 2.6 "- Galaxy com sensor de 1 / 2,6 polegadas. Dois conjuntos de imagens ­ "documentação odontológica" e "pequenos objetos" ­ foram realizados. As fotografias foram avaliadas por três grupos de examinadores: estudantes de graduação (US); dentistas (DS); e dentistas com experiência em fotografia (DP). Foram atribuídas pontuações entre 0 e 10. Os resultados foram comparados por Anova e Tukey (α = 0,05). Resultados: os maiores escores foram obtidos com o APSCnik100 (8,5). Para "documentação odontológica", APSCcan18-55 e APSCnik18-55 apresentaram os menores valores. Para "objetos pequenos", as DSLRs resultaram em valores médios mais altos em comparação aos smartphones. Conclusões: as câmeras DSLR com lentes de 18 a 55 mm e sem flash circular não devem ser usadas para fotografias de documentação. As câmeras DSLR, independentemente da lente, são superiores aos smartphones para fotografias de objetos pequenos. (AU)

Developmental dental anomalies and their potential role in establishing identity in post-mortem cases: a review.

Teeth may provide useful forensic evidence owing to features like uniqueness, stability and comparability. Moreover, the human dentition is heterodont, i.e. all the teeth have different morphology - incisors, canines, premolars and molars. There are sometimes deviations from normal morphology, such as the presence of extra teeth, variation in their shape and size eg the presence of an extra cusp, fractured crown/root, Carabelli's cusp, peg laterals, transpositions, fusion, etc. These differences can help forensic personnel identify bodies, especially where other methods of identification like facial features, fingerprints or DNA typing cannot yield satisfactory results as in cases of badly decomposed bodies, burnt remains, mass disasters, etc. Identification from dentition is based on the direct comparison of post-mortem dental profiles with ante-mortem dental records of the deceased. This article aims to review these developmental and morphological dental traits and their role in post-mortem identification.

Simple Approaches for Establishing an Evidence-Based Dental Practice.

Constructing an evidence-based dental practice requires leadership, commitment, technology support, and time, as well as skill practice in searching, appraising, and organizing evidence. In mastering the skills of evidence-based dentistry, clinicians can implement high-quality science into practice through a variety of opportunities including the development of clinical care guidelines, procedural technique protocols, and electronic dental record auto-note templates, as well as treatment planning, care prioritization, and case presentation. The benefits of building an evidence-based dental practice are many, including improvements in patient care and satisfaction, increased treatment predictability and confidence in care approaches, as well as potential cost savings.

Electronic clinical dental records: unintended consequences.

Record keeping is an essential component of delivering safe and appropriate care. In an ever increasing climate of litigation and complaints contemporaneous record keeping has assumed increasing importance, but is time consuming to do well and cover the aspects of care necessary. Practitioners have started using templates and copy and paste notes which, whilst useful, have their limitations and create problems of their own.

The Average Annual Percent Change Analyzes of Preventive Dental Care in the Slovak Republic, 2014-2016

Objective: To analyse of the average annual percent change (AAPC) of registered dental patients, patients with preventive dental care and patients requiring dental treatment in the period of 2014-2016 in the Slovak Republic. Material and Methods: Data from registered dental patients (n=14,736,888), patients with preventive dental care (n=8,212,441) and patients requiring dental treatment (n=5,262,323) in the period of 2014-2016 were obtained from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic; 28,211,652 dental patients were analysed. The Theil-Sen estimator of trend line based on median and its significance was tested by nonparametric Wilcoxon test using statistical software R package. Results: The significant decrease (-4.11%) of the AAPC rates of registered dental patient (p<0.05) during the entire period (2014-2016) can be observed in age subcategory 15-18 years, while in age subcategory 19+ years the nonsignificant increase (1.08%) of the AAPC rate of registered dental patients in the same period was achieved. In the period of 2014-2016, the highest AAPC rate of patients with preventive dental care with the significant decrease was found in age subcategory 6-14 years (-17.19%; p<0.001). The AAPC rate of patients requiring dental treatment proved the significant negative values in age subcategory 0-5 years (-7.26%; p<0.01), in age subcategory 6-14 years (-9.33%; p<0.001), in age subcategory 15-18 years (-8.81%; p<0.01). Conclusion: The highest decrease AAPC rate of registered dental patients was observed in age subcategory 15-18 years. The statistical significant decrease AAPC rate of patients with preventive dental care was found in children ≤ 18 years. In patients requiring dental treatment (≤ 18 y.) was observed decrease AAPC rate.

Inaccurate Dental Charting in an Audit of 1128 General Dental Practice Records.

Fourteen dentists at different practices in the UK assessed the dental charts of 1128 patients who were new to the dentist but not new to the practice; 44% of the dental charts were found to be inaccurate. Inaccuracy of the individual practice-based charts ranged between 16% for the best performing practices to 83% for the worst: 5% of dental charts had too many teeth charted and 5% had too few teeth charted; 13% of charts had missed amalgam restorations and 18% had missed tooth-coloured restorations; 5% of charts had amalgam restorations recorded but with the surfaces incorrect (eg an MO restoration charted but a DO restoration actually present); 9% of charts had tooth-coloured restoration surfaces incorrectly recorded. For 7.5% of charts, amalgams were charted but not actually present. Other inaccuracies were also noted. The authors reinforce the requirements of the GDC, the advice of defence organizations, and the forensic importance of accurate dental charts. Clinical relevance: Dental charting forms part of the patient's dental records, and the GDC requires dentists to maintain complete and accurate dental records.

The use of tools to support oral lesion description in oral medicine referrals.

Poor description of oral lesions jeopardize the prioritization of appointments in Oral Medicine. The present study investigated whether the use of support tools changes the quality of descriptions focusing on health care prioritization. Two oral lesions (A and B) were described by 64 dental students and 48 dentists using three methods: (a) without support tools (free); (b) using the oral examination form from the Specialties Manual in Oral Health/Brazilian Ministry of Health (SMOH form); and (c) using the OralDESC guideline. The descriptions were compared with a gold standard and percentage of agreement was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests (p<0.05). Descriptions with the OralDESC presented higher information quality. Considering items essential for prioritization, the OralDESC demonstrated better performance for lesion A; for lesion B, free descriptions and descriptions using the OralDESC were of higher quality than those using SMOH form. Therefore, the OralDESC offered greater support for the description of oral lesions for health care prioritization in Oral Medicine.