Influence of physician evaluation portals on orthodontist selection by patients.

OBJECTIVE: This survey aimed to determine the influence of physician evaluation portals (PEP) on a patient's choice of physicians, particularly orthodontists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were used to collect sociodemographic data, reasons for orthodontist selection, type of Internet use, as well as information on the knowledge, use and evaluation of 14 popular PEPs. A total of 506 questionnaires were evaluated, and a descriptive statistical evaluation was conducted using the χ2 test. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents selected orthodontists on the basis of personal recommendations by other physicians (35%), family/friends (33%) or patient referral (14%). Currently, the most popular portals in Germany, which are mostly found through Internet searches, are jameda.de (36%) and arztauskunft.de (19%). A total of 5% of the respondents have already used a PEP to evaluate a physician. Moreover, 70% of the respondents described PEPs as helpful, 28% as recommendable and 2% use PEPs regularly. Knowledge of PEPs is correlated with the level of educational attainment (p = 0.024) and the frequency of Internet use (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On the selection of healthcare providers, particularly orthodontists, PEPs have little influence. Patients select physicians on the basis of personal recommendations. Physicians' concerns about negative evaluations on PEPs are unfounded given the low level of awareness of PEPs by the general populace.

Dentist-time expenditure for two different adhesive all-ceramic systems.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical investigation was to compare a chair-side adhesive all-ceramic system to a laboratory processed adhesive all-ceramic system with respect to quality and time expenditure for the dentist. METHODS: The same dentist treated 10 patients, who were each to receive two large posterior single tooth restorations of similar location and extent. One restoration was made in the laboratory by using the IPS Empress system [LAB], the other one was done chair-side by utilizing the Cerec system [CHAIR]. The time expenditure was measured for [LAB] and [CHAIR] and compared by the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The restorations were also evaluated according to the USPHS criteria. RESULTS: The mean time expenditure for the dentist with low-level assistance was 111:03 min [S.D.+/-24:09 min] for [LAB] and 115:31 min [S.D.+/-15:54 min] for [CHAIR]. Time expenditure with medium level assistance for the operator was 100:53 min [S.D.+/-23:59] for [LAB] and 105:50 [S.D.+/-15:28] for [CHAIR]. Assuming a high level of assistance, the mean time values were 53:11 min [S.D.+/-14:29] for [LAB] and 54:29 min [S.D.+/-09:21] for [CHAIR]. The baseline investigation according to the modified USPHS criteria did not reveal any differences between [CHAIR] and [LAB]. CONCLUSION: There were no statistical significant differences with respect to time expenditure or quality between [LAB] and [CHAIR] in this study.