A national study of cross infection control: 'are we clean enough?'.

OBJECTIVE: To establish what cross infection control policies and procedures are in place within UK orthodontic departments and how they compare with recommended guidelines. DESIGN: A hospital-based cross-sectional study investigating UK orthodontic departments between March 2007 and January 2008. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The main outcome measure was a questionnaire constructed for the study, based on current cross infection control guidelines. All orthodontic departments within district general hospitals were invited to participate via email and the response rate was 48%. RESULTS: Five key areas were explored, which included a) training, education and personal protection, b) the clinical environment, c) decontamination of instruments, d) decontamination of appliances and impressions and e) disposal of waste. Ninety-eight percent of departments provided training in cross infection control and 98% also had a policy to check staff immunisation status. With respect to the clinical environment, 97% of the departments surveyed had separate 'clean' and 'dirty' zones. Half of all departments used central sterile services departments (CSSD) for instrument sterilisation. Seventy-eight percent of departments had a policy to decontaminate impressions/appliances at the chairside and all departments used 'yellow bags' for clinical waste and puncture-proof containers for sharps waste. CONCLUSIONS: UK orthodontic departments have implemented policies and procedures which would ensure a high standard of cross infection control. In particular, this related to the decontamination of surfaces and instruments, the use of personal protection and disposal of clinical waste. Most departments had policies and procedures in place for staff education and training in cross infection control and personal protection.

Are general dental practitioners effective in the management of non-apnoeic snoring using mandibular advancement appliances?

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effectiveness of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the management of subjects with non-apnoeic snoring using a mandibular advancement appliance (MAA), following a one day training course. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty subjects suffering from simple, non-apnoeic snoring were treated by 15 GDPs, in three hospital centres, using a monobloc mandibular advancement appliance design. All GDPs attended a one day training course prior to the study which covered theoretical and practical training in the use of mandibular advancement appliances. Snoring and level of disturbance were assessed using a questionnaire completed by their sleeping partner before and after a three month treatment period. Daytime sleepiness was assessed by the patients using the Epworth sleepiness scale questionnaire (ESS) before and after a three month treatment period. In addition, patients completed an outcome questionnaire, to assess side-effects experienced from the MAA. RESULTS: A success rate of 48% (95% CI 0.35, 0.61) was achieved in partner-assessed snoring and disturbance levels, following a three month period of MAA treatment. The median ESS score reduced from 9 to 7.5 (95% CI 0, 3). General dental practitioners experienced problems during protrusive bite registrations, with 10% being judged inadequate. CONCLUSION: GDPs were not effective in the management of non-apnoeic snoring using a monobloc appliance after a one day training course. Further training and/or selection of a different design of appliance should be considered for GDPs to become highly competent in this area.

American orthodontics Maurice Berman Prize 2005.

This paper describes the orthodontic treatment of two cases, which were awarded the 2005 Maurice Berman Prize.

Clinical pearl In-treatment replacement of missing incisors.

Four methods of in-treatment replacement of missing incisors are described.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of direct or indirect bracket placement. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized comparison of 2 different methods of bracket placement. SETTING: Queens Hospital, Burton upon Trent, UK between February and May 2001. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Twenty-six consecutive patients requiring upper and lower MBT trade mark pre-adjusted Edgewise appliances had their labial segments bonded directly or indirectly according to a split mouth system of allocation. Before and after bond-up all brackets were photographed and measured from tracings to determine positional differences from the ideal. RESULTS: Using ANOVA (General Linear Model), vertical errors were found to be greater than those in the horizontal plane, which in turn were greater than angular errors (p<0.05). Errors were greater in the maxillary arch than in the mandibular arch. There was no significant difference between the mean errors produced by the two methods of bracket placement. CONCLUSIONS: Mean bracket placement errors were similar with both techniques.

The Burton approach to indirect bonding.

There has been a resurgence of interest in the indirect bonding technique for orthodontics. The procedure is not often used in the UK and the reasons for this, as well as the renewal of interest, are explored. A costing exercise suggests that the cost-effectiveness of the technique may be improved by the described Burton technique and, in the light of current manpower considerations, the implications for its use in the future are also discussed.