Mandatory Drug Testing of Dental Students: To Test or Not to Test: Viewpoint 1: Drug Testing of Dental Students Should Be Mandatory for the Benefit of Students, Institutions, Patients, and the Profession and Viewpoint 2: Mandatory Drug Testing of Dental Students Carries Costs and Risks for Institutions and Students and Has Unproven Benefits.

An educational institution's decision to test or not test its students for drug use is controversial and complex. Although negative consequences of substance use disorder are well known, the consumption of prohibited substances continues to increase in young adults. Given the awareness of increasing drug use on college campuses and the potential impact on future health care professionals, issues associated with mandatory drug testing of dental students warrant investigation. The purpose of this Point/Counterpoint article is to present opposing viewpoints on whether mandatory student drug testing (MSDT) should be implemented for dental students. Viewpoint 1 affirms that MSDT is legal, ensures public safety, is recognized as a need in health care education, promotes professional and ethical responsibility, and is cost-effective. Viewpoint 2 asserts that MSDT has not been proven to be an effective deterrent for student drug use and it poses risks and costs for both institutions and students, ranging from potential violation of students' civil liberties to the consequences of false positive tests. This article's presentation of the recent literature on both sides of this issue provides dental educators with pertinent information for considering implementation of MSDT in their institutions.

Influence of Preparatory Workshops on Dental Students' Academic Performance and Stress on Their First Operative Dentistry Psychomotor Exam.

Predoctoral dental psychomotor examinations are known to generate high levels of stress among dental students, which may compromise their academic performance. At one U.S. dental school, all 93 first-year dental students were invited to attend a series of three workshop sessions prior to enrollment in their initial operative dentistry course. The workshops were developed to facilitate academic transition from the dental anatomy course to the operative dentistry course; provide early exposure to materials, instruments, and laboratory techniques; support the early development of psychomotor and self-assessment skills; and lessen students' stress and anxiety levels regarding psychomotor examinations. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the workshops on the students' academic performance and self-reported stress and preparedness. All students who attended the workshop sessions and all who did not were asked to complete a pre-exam survey (immediately preceding the exam) and a post-exam survey (immediately after the exam) on the day of their first operative dentistry psychomotor exam. Of the 93 students, 21 attended one, 34 attended two, and 25 attended three workshop sessions, while 13 students did not attend any. Response rates for the pre- and post-exam surveys were 100% and 98.9%, respectively. Students who attended all three workshop sessions reported being significantly less stressed about taking the exam than the other groups. The mean exam grade of students who attended the workshop sessions was significantly higher than that of students who did not attend the sessions. These findings support the development and implementation of preparatory workshops to improve academic performance and decrease the stress levels of dental students prior to the first operative dentistry psychomotor exam.

Potential erosive effect of mouthrinses on enamel and dentin.

This in vitro study measured the pH values, titratable acidity (TA), and erosive potential of commercially available mouthrinses. A pH analysis of 6 mouthrinses (Listerine Total Care, Listerine Ultraclean, Listerine Original, Crest Pro-Health, Scope Classic, and ACT Total Care) was performed using a calibrated pH meter, and the neutralizable acidity was measured by titrating the mouthwashes against 0.1 M of sodium hydroxide. A gravimetric analysis was performed by submerging human enamel and dentin specimens in 5 mL of each mouthrinse for a total of 2 weeks. Specimens were weighed on a calibrated analytical balance at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, 96 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks, and finally the loss of mass was calculated. The differences in erosive potential among the 6 mouthrinses were verified using nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann- Whitney). The level of significance was set at 0.05. The mouthrinses were found to have the following mean pH/ TA values: Crest Pro-Health, 7.05/0.00; ACT Total Care, 6.31/5.44; Scope Classic, 5.18/0.42; Listerine Original, 3.98/9.26; Listerine Total Care, 3.43/5.88; and Listerine Ultraclean, 3.87/10.36. A significant correlation between pH and TA was observed for this dataset (P > 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in enamel loss among the groups was observed (P = 0.0631). However, a significant difference in dentin loss was observed among the 6 mouthrinses (P = 0.0011). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that some mouthrinses have a pH lower than the critical pH of enamel and dentin. There is a significant association between acidic pH values and higher TA. Some of the tested mouthrinses presented an erosive potential on dentin.

Repair or Replacement of Restorations: A Prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study that included dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network was conducted to quantify 12-month failures of restorations that were repaired or replaced at baseline. The study tested the hypothesis that no significant differences exist in failure percentages between repaired and replaced restorations after 12 months. It also tested the hypothesis that certain dentist, patient, and restoration characteristics are significantly associated with the incidence of restoration failure. METHODS: Dentists recorded data for 50 or more consecutive defective restorations. The restorations that were either - repaired or replaced were recalled after 12 months and characterized for developing defects. RESULTS: Dentists (N = 195) recorded data on 5,889 restorations; 378 restorations required additional treatment (74 repaired, 171 replaced, 84 teeth received endodontic treatment, and 49 were extracted). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that additional treatment was more likely to occur if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with replaced (5%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.1), if a molar was restored (7%) compared with premolars or anterior teeth (5% and 6%, respectively) (OR, 1.4; P = .010; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), and if the primary reason was a fracture (8%) compared with other reasons (6%) (OR, 1.3; P = .033; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: An additional treatment was more likely to occur within the first year if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with being replaced (5%). However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment (replacement, endodontic treatment, or extraction) than replaced restorations. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: One year after repair or replacement of a defective restoration, the failure rate was low. However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment than replaced restorations.

Abfraction lesions: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment options.

Abfraction is a type of noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL) characterized by loss of tooth tissues with different clinical appearances. Evidence supports that abfraction lesions, as any NCCLs, have a multifactorial etiology. Particularly, the cervical wear of abfraction can occur as a result of normal and abnormal tooth function and may also be accompanied by pathological wear, such as abrasion and erosion. The interaction between chemical, biological, and behavioral factors is critical and helps to explain why some individuals exhibit more than one type of cervical wear mechanism than others. In an era of personalized dentistry, patient risk factors for NCCLs must be identified and addressed before any treatment is performed. Marked variations exist in dental practice concerning the diagnosis and management of these lesions. The lack of understanding about the prognosis of these lesions with or without intervention may be a major contributor to variations in dentists' management decisions. This review focuses on the current knowledge and available treatment strategies for abfraction lesions. By recognizing that progressive changes in the cervical area of the tooth are part of a physiologically dynamic process that occurs with aging, premature and unnecessary intervention can be avoided. In cases of asymptomatic teeth, where tooth vitality and function are not compromised, abfraction lesions should be monitored for at least 6 months before any invasive procedure is planned. In cases of abfraction associated with gingival recession, a combined restorative-surgical approach may be performed. Restorative intervention and occlusal adjustment are not indicated as treatment options to prevent further tooth loss or progression of abfraction. The clinical decision to restore abfraction lesions may be based on the need to replace form and function or to relieve hypersensitivity of severely compromised teeth or for esthetic reasons.

Repair or replacement of restorations: A prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study that included dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network was conducted to quantify 12-month failures of restorations that were repaired or replaced at baseline. The study tested the hypothesis that no significant differences exist in failure percentages between repaired and replaced restorations after 12 months. It also tested the hypothesis that certain dentist, patient, and restoration characteristics are significantly associated with the incidence of restoration failure. METHODS: Dentists recorded data for 50 or more consecutive defective restorations. The restorations that were either repaired or replaced were recalled after 12 months and characterized for developing defects. RESULTS: Dentists (N = 195) recorded data on 5,889 restorations; 378 restorations required additional treatment (74 repaired, 171 replaced, 84 teeth received endodontic treatment, and 49 were extracted). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that additional treatment was more likely to occur if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with replaced (5%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.1), if a molar was restored (7%) compared with premolars or anterior teeth (5% and 6%, respectively) (OR, 1.4; P = .010; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), and if the primary reason was a fracture (8%) compared with other reasons (6%) (OR, 1.3; P = .033; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: An additional treatment was more likely to occur within the first year if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with being replaced (5%). However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment (replacement, endodontic treatment, or extraction) than replaced restorations. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: One year after repair or replacement of a defective restoration, the failure rate was low. However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment than replaced restorations.