Investigating periodontal diagnosis and treatment at one dental school.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patients at one dental education institution received appropriate care based on their periodontal diagnosis in a timely manner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a retrospective design to evaluate data from July 2018 to February 2020. The patient records were screened to determine whether patients received a periodontal diagnosis, whether the diagnosis followed the 2018 AAP Classification Guidelines, and if appropriate preventive and therapeutic procedures were completed in a timely manner. In addition, the type or year of dental student providing the procedure was also recorded. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 612 charts were generated for review and 157 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Results revealed that more than half (56.7%) of the patient records did not demonstrate a periodontal diagnosis and another 10.8% did not follow current AAP Classification Guidelines. Most patients (n = 125, 79.6%) had a comprehensive periodontal assessment performed, while 32 (20.4%) had no comprehensive periodontal charting information recorded. Further, of the 157 records reviewed, 96 (61.1%) had no periodontal treatment specified. A statistically significant difference with a modest association was found between type of dental student and year based on periodontal diagnosis (Fisher's exact test value = 20.72, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Documentation of key clinical information, diagnostic conclusions, and treatment rendered requires curriculum review. Further studies are warranted to determine whether similar findings exist among other dental school education programs.

Examining the Case for Dental Hygienists' Teaching Predoctoral Dental Students: A Two-Part Study.

Dental students in North American dental schools are exposed to faculty members with various professional backgrounds. These faculty members may include dentists, dental hygienists, and scientists without clinical dental credentials. The practice of dental hygienists' educating predoctoral dental students has not been well documented. The aims of this two-part study were to investigate the parameters of didactic, preclinical, and clinical instruction of dental students by dental hygienist faculty members in North American dental schools and to explore dental students' perceptions of this form of teaching. In part one, a survey was sent electronically to the clinical or academic affairs deans of all 76 American Dental Education Association (ADEA) member dental schools in 2017. Twenty-nine responded, for a 38.2% response rate. In 76% of the responding schools, dental hygienists were teaching dental students. Most respondents reported that, in their schools, the minimum degree required to teach didactically was a master's, while a bachelor's degree was required for preclinical and clinical courses. There was no significant association between dental hygienists' instructing dental students and having a dental hygiene educational program at the institution. In part two of the study, a questionnaire was completed by 102 graduating dental students (85% response rate) at one U.S. university to evaluate the impact of dental hygienist educators. Among the respondents, 87% reported feeling that dental hygienists were very effective educators. There were no significant differences in responses between traditional and advanced standing international dental students. This study found that dental hygienists were educating dental students in many North American dental schools and were doing so in curricular content beyond periodontics and that their educational contributions at a sample school were valued by the dental students there.