Influence of Self-Assessment on Dental Students' Performance on Technical Assessments in Periodontics.

Self-assessments were introduced into a third-year clinical periodontics course to enable dental students to self-assess and receive faculty feedback prior to technical assessment. The aims of this study were to determine if there was an improvement in the pass rate and average grade on the technical assessments following implementation of self-assessments and to analyze the accuracy of the student self-assessments by comparing them with faculty assessments. Scores from 106 third-year dental students for four periodontal procedures were included in the analysis. Faculty and student self-assessment scores, along with self-assessment and final technical assessments scores, were compared, as were the average number of self-assessment attempts for the various procedures and the pass rates. The average number of self-assessments per student was 6.5 compared to 4.2 for the technical assessments. There was no significant difference between students' self-assessment scores and faculty scores (average difference=0.005; p=0.7894). However, there was a significant increase in overall scores between students' self-assessments and technical assessments (average difference: 0.30 out of 5; p=0.0001). There was also a significant difference in pass rate between self-assessments and technical assessments (92.3% and 99.7%, respectively). The individual technical assessment with the greatest improvement was for scaling and root planing (average difference=0.47; p=0.0001), which also had significantly more self-assessments (2.3 vs. 1.2-1.7, p=0.0001). These results suggest that self-assessment and the subsequent faculty feedback provided students with information that enabled them to improve their performance on technical assessments.

The reporting quality of meta-analysis results of systematic review abstracts in periodontology and implant dentistry is suboptimal.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Faggion CM Jr., Liu J, Huda F, Atieh M. J Periodontal Res 2014; 49(2):137-42. REVIEWER: Argy Polychronopoulou, DDS, MS, ScM, ScD PURPOSE/QUESTION: What is the reporting quality of meta-analysis results of abstracts of systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry journals? SOURCE OF FUNDING: The authors received no funding for this study TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Other evidence STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION GRADE: Not applicable.

Specialty education in periodontics in Japan and the United States: comparison of programs at Nippon Dental University Hospital and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Japan has institutions that train qualified postdoctoral students in the field of periodontics; however, Japan does not have comprehensive advanced periodontal programs and national standards for these specialty programs. To help Japanese programs move toward global standards in this area, this study was designed to describe overall differences in periodontics specialty education in Japan and the United States and to compare periodontics faculty members and residents' characteristics and attitudes in two specific programs, one in each country. Periodontal faculty members and residents at Nippon Dental University (NDU) and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) Dental School participated in the survey study: four faculty members and nine residents at NDU; seven faculty members and thirteen residents at UTHSCSA. Demographic data were collected as well as respondents' attitudes toward and assessment of their programs. The results showed many differences in curriculum structure and clinical performance. In contrast to the UTHSCSA respondents, for example, the residents and faculty members at NDU reported that they did not have enough subject matter and time to learn clinical science. Although the residents at NDU reported seeing more total patients in one month than those at UTHSCSA, they were taught fewer varieties of periodontal treatments. To provide high-quality and consistent education for periodontal residents, Japan needs to establish a set of standards that will have positive consequences for those in Japan who need periodontal treatment.

Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological approaches used to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews (SRs) in periodontology and implant dentistry. MATERIALS & METHODS: Two electronic databases (PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) were searched independently to identify SRs examining interventions published through 2 September 2013. The reference lists of included SRs and records of 10 specialty dental journals were searched manually. Methodological approaches were assessed using seven criteria based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Temporal trends in methodological quality were also explored. RESULTS: Of the 159 SRs with meta-analyses included in the analysis, 44 (28%) reported the use of domain-based tools, 15 (9%) reported the use of checklists and 7 (4%) reported the use of scales. Forty-two (26%) SRs reported use of more than one tool. Criteria were met heterogeneously; authors of 15 (9%) publications incorporated the quality of evidence of primary studies into SRs, whereas 69% of SRs reported methodological approaches in the Materials/Methods section. Reporting of four criteria was significantly better in recent (2010-2013) than in previous publications. CONCLUSION: The analysis identified several methodological limitations of approaches used to assess evidence in studies included in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of study results by readers. The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Differences in reporting of abstracts in Cochrane and paper-based reviews were also assessed. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database and the Cochrane database for SRs were searched on November 11, 2012, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses related to interventions in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment of the quality of reporting was performed independently and in duplicate, taking into account items related to the effect direction, numerical estimates of effect size, measures of precision, probability and consistency. RESULTS: We initially screened 433 papers and included 146 (127 paper-based and 19 Cochrane reviews, respectively). The direction of evidence was reported in two-thirds of the abstracts while strength of evidence and measure of precision (i.e., confidence interval) were reported in less than half the selected abstracts. Measures of consistency such as I(2) statistics were reported in only 5% of the selected sample of abstracts. Cochrane abstracts reported the limitations of evidence and precision better than paper-based ones. Two items ("meta-analysis" in title and abstract, respectively), were nevertheless better reported in paper-based abstracts. CONCLUSION: Abstracts of SRs with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry currently have no uniform standard of reporting, which may hinder readers' understanding of study outcomes.

Examiner alignment and assessment in clinical periodontal research.

Periodontal research typically relies on clinical examiners to assess variables such as gingival inflammation, plaque scores or probing depths as a means of determining treatment outcomes or for performing group comparisons. The quality of the gathered information is dependent, to a large extent, on the skills of the examiner(s) and on the validity of the assessment methods that are used. Attempts have been made to increase the objectivity of periodontal assessments, for example by introducing scoring systems for gingival inflammation, but within these systems there is often considerable scope for variation when interpreting the scoring criteria, leading to subjectivity when assigning scores to individual periodontal sites. This has led to an awareness of the importance of examiner alignment and assessment to improve the data quality by standardizing techniques and improving examiner reliability. Examiner alignment and assessment is used in preference to the term 'examiner calibration' because calibration implies comparison with an accurate or 'gold' standard, which is not available in periodontal research. In this review, we consider the historical perspective that led to the development of clinical scoring systems for periodontal research using gingival inflammation as an example. A clinical protocol for undertaking examiner alignment and assessment is presented, and we review the common sources of error and bias that can lead to difficulties in aligning examiners, and consider how they can be eliminated. It is particularly important that subjects who are recruited to the examiner alignment and assessment study present with a comparable level of disease to the subjects who will ultimately be recruited to the planned clinical trial. Another challenge in examiner alignment and assessment is applying appropriate statistical tests to assess the outcome of the alignment exercise. In the periodontal literature, the statistic kappa is frequently used to confirm an adequate degree of examiner agreement, but kappa is bound to significant restrictions when applied for this purpose. Through the use of case studies, we present different approaches to data analysis from calibration studies, focusing on continuous variables (such as probing depths and attachment levels) or ordinal data (such as gingival or plaque indices), to enable a correct, although frequently conservative, interpretation of data generated during examiner alignment and assessment studies.

Accuracy of dentists in the clinical diagnosis of oral lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Dentists play an important role in the early diagnosis and treatment of oral lesions. However, treatment based solely on a clinical impression of the diagnosis, without histologic confirmation, can result in serious consequences, particularly when the lesion is precancerous or cancerous. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall accuracy of clinical diagnoses made by dentists as well as to compare the diagnostic ability of general practitioners with members of various dental specialties. METHOD AND MATERIALS: The biopsy reports of 976 specimens submitted to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, between January 2009 and January 2010 were reviewed. The presumptive clinical diagnosis made by the practitioner and the final histologic diagnosis on each specimen were recorded in addition to whether the submitting dentist was a general practitioner or a specialist. RESULTS: Of the clinical diagnoses made by the submitting dentists, 43% were incorrect. General dentists misdiagnosed 45.9%, oral and maxillofacial surgeons 42.8%, endodontists 42.2%, and periodontists 41.2% of the time. The most commonly missed clinical diagnoses were hyperkeratosis (16%), focal inflammatory fibrous hyperplasia (10%), fibroma (8%), periapical granuloma (7%), and radicular cyst (6%). Cancerous lesions were misdiagnosed 5.6% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: The high rates of clinical misdiagnosis by dental practitioners indicate that all excised lesions should to be submitted for histologic diagnosis.

[Dissertations 25 years after date 24. Barriers to effective periodontal care]. / Proefschriften 25 jaar na dato 24. Belemmeringen bij effectieve parodontale behandeling.

In the thesis 'Barriers to effective periodontal care, published in 1984, an investigation was described on professional periodontal care lagging behind the development of periodontology. The objectives of the investigation were to assess whether dentists were treating periodontal disease as a behavioural problem using effective communication techniques, and whether serious periodontal disease had such low frequency that dentists had not the opportunity to become experienced in recognizing the disease. It was concluded that serious periodontal disease had a low frequency and was not influenced by communication on periodontal care. After 25 years, these conclusions are still valid: the percentage of risk patients is still 5-10% and the correlation between seriousness of periodontal disease and periodontal care provided is still limited. Not all dentists do have affinity to periodontal care, but they do have affinity to practical aspects, such as removing dental calculus deposits. A classification of obvious recognizable diseases and treatments would make periodontal care more manageable for dentists.

Risk management in clinical practice. Part 10. Periodontology.

A sizeable proportion of patients in clinical practice will have some form of periodontal disease and most of these patients can be well managed in primary care. Unfortunately, dento-legal claims regarding inappropriate periodontal care are increasing rapidly and are now one of the most common reasons for litigation in dentistry. In this paper we will look at aspects of contemporary management of periodontal disease in clinical practice and offer guidance for examination, management and referral.

Root coverage esthetic score after treatment of gingival recession: an interrater agreement multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The root coverage esthetic score (RES) system was proposed for evaluating esthetic outcomes of root coverage procedures. The aim of this multicenter study is to assess the interrater agreement of the RES among expert periodontists. METHODS: Eleven periodontists were selected in different clinical centers. Each operator had ≥15 years of experience in mucogingival surgery. Each periodontist was trained to use RES before the beginning of the study. Subsequently, baseline and post-treatment (6 months) photographs of 41 Class I and II gingival recessions in 41 patients were separately given to each operator who evaluated the outcomes according to the RES method. A two-way random interclass correlation coefficient and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the global interrater agreement for RESs. RESULTS: The total interrater agreement for RESs was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88 to 0.95), which indicated that an almost perfect agreement was achieved. CONCLUSION: Tested individually by a group of periodontists, the RES seems to be a reliable method for assessing the esthetic outcomes of root coverage procedures.

Influence of bony defects on implant stability.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to analyze the evolution of implant mechanical stability in different types/sizes of bony defects using both Periotest and Osstell devices as "objective tools." MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two implants were randomly allocated to one of the four types of bone defects: marginal bone loss, peri-apical bone defect, constant width dehiscence and constant length dehiscences. Periotest/Osstell measurements were completed before and during staged bone removal (to enlarge defect size). RESULTS: Significant differences (P<0.05) with initial values were found after a 2 mm marginal bone removal (Osstell/Periotest); for a peri-apical bone lesion, after removal of 5 mm (Osstell) or 8 mm (Periotest); for a 6-mm-long dehiscence, after removal up to 180 degrees of the implant perimeter (Osstell/Periotest); for a 3-mm-wide dehiscence, after removal of 10 mm (Osstell) or 6 mm (Periotest). CONCLUSION: Periotest and Osstell are in general not very sensitive in the identification of peri-implant bone destruction, except for marginal bone loss.

Dental hygienists in Europe: trends towards harmonization of education and practice since 2003.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the trends in dental hygienists' education and regulation in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) to examine whether, since 2003, there has been harmonization in dental hygiene education. METHODS: Information and data were obtained via piloted questionnaires and structured interviews with delegates from the International and European Dental Hygienists' Federations and representatives of the Council of European Chief Dental Officers and by literature review. RESULTS: In the EU/EEA, dental hygienists are legally recognized in 22 countries. Since 2003, there has been an increase in the number of Bachelor degree programmes and in autonomous practice. Entry to the profession is now exclusively via a Bachelor degree in five EU/EEA Member States and pending in two more. Ten Member States have adapted their degree programmes to the European Credit Transfer System. Two Member States combine education for dental hygienists and dental therapists. However, dental hygienists are not recognized by EU law and in five Members States, the introduction of the profession has been opposed by dental associations. CONCLUSIONS: For the reasons of wide variations in the standards of preventive care and periodontal therapies, the formal recognition of the dental hygiene profession by EU legislation and agreement on a pan-European curriculum for dental hygiene education leading to defined professional competencies and learning outcomes is required. To achieve this, there is a need for a better collaboration between competent authorities including governments, universities and dental and dental hygienists' associations.

Evidence-based curriculum reform: the Kentucky Experience.

Evidence-based health care seeks to base clinical practice and decision-making on best evidence, while allowing for modifications because of patient preferences and individual clinical situations. Dentistry has been slow to embrace this discipline, but this is changing. In the Graduate Periodontology Program (GPP) of the University of Kentucky, an evidence-based clinical curriculum was implemented in 2004. The tools of evidence-based health care (EBHC) were used to create evidence-based protocols to guide clinical decision-making by faculty and residents. The program was largely successful, although certain challenges were encountered. As a result of the positive experience with the GPP, the college is implementing a wider program in which evidence-based protocols will form the basis for all patient care and clinical education in the predoctoral clinics. A primary component of this is a computerized risk assessment tool that will aid in clinical decision-making. Surveys of alumni of the periodontal graduate program show that the EBHC program has been effective in changing practice patterns, and similar follow-up studies are planned to assess the effectiveness of the predoctoral EBHC program.