The Impact of COVID-19 on the Oral Health of Patients with Special Needs

Abstract : Aim: To raise awareness, regarding the scope of practice in Pediatric Dentistry, among medical practitioners working in the Pediatrics Department. Material and Methods: Members of the Office of Director of Dentistry in Hafr Al Batin visited all the hospitals and conducted a paper-based survey. Pediatricians and resident doctors working in the pediatric department were asked to fill a questionnaire. The questionnaire elicited information regarding personal details, knowledge, approach and awareness towards pediatric oral health. A total of 122 responses were collected, and their results analyzed. Results : A total of 122 responses were collected of which 62 were pediatricians and 60 were physicians. The average age was 41 years. Most Pediatricians knew about Pediatric dentistry as a separate specialty in dentistry whereas most physicians were unaware of it. The scope of practice of pediatric dentists, especially in handling patients with special needs were not known to many of them. The overall response was unsatisfactory. Conclusion: Most of the consultants and specialists Pediatricians were aware of Pediatric Dentistry as a distinct specialty. The survey found out that a significant number of doctors were oblivious of the scope of practice, especially in the management of patients with special needs, under general anesthesia. A dedicated CME program was conducted to spread awareness among the concerned doctors, and suggestions made to improve the services.

Download Full-text

Barriers to Oral health care in patients with special needs-A Cross-sectional study

Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology ◽

10.52711/0974-360x.2021.00383 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 2167-2171

Author(s):

Nandhini Subramaniam ◽

Arvind Muthukrishnan

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Oral Health ◽

Special Needs ◽

Dental Care ◽

Dental Treatment ◽

Oral Health Care ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Patients With Special Needs

Aim- This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the barriers to receive oral care among patients with special health care needs. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 50 patients seeking dental treatment in the special care unit of Oral medicine department. A self-administered questionnaire was employed for data collection. Results: It was found that nearly 56% of respondents listed fear towards dental treatment as an important barrier which in turn prevents them from gaining access to dental care. Around 52% of patients considered their underlying medical problem as a reason for not seeking dental care as their comorbid condition would increase their fear of dental treatment, 43% of patients considered physical barriers or in need of caretakers as a barrier to Dental care. 10% of the population stated that they do not have barriers to access Dental care. Conclusion: The major barriers to oral health care utilization among patients with special needs were fear-related and hence these patients need attention towards fear alleviation and make dental care painless and simple.

Download Full-text

Oral health of patients with special needs requiring treatment under general anaesthesia

Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability ◽

10.3109/13668250.2018.1477409 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

pp. 315-320

Author(s):

Mathew A. W. T Lim ◽

Gelsomina L. Borromeo

Keyword(s):

Oral Health ◽

Special Needs ◽

General Anaesthesia ◽

Patients With Special Needs

Download Full-text

The impact of self-reported oral health on the quality of life of teenage students with or without orthodontic treatment from North-East of Romania

10.15303/rjeap.2016.si1.a44 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

GEORGETA ZEGAN ◽

◽

CRISTINA GENA DASCĂLU ◽

RADU EDUARD CERNEI ◽

RADU BOGDAN MAVRU ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Oral Health ◽

Orthodontic Treatment ◽

North East ◽

The Impact

Download Full-text

Patients With a History of Oronasal Fistula Repair Exhibit Lower Oral Health Measured With Patient-Centric Outcomes Measures

The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal ◽

10.1177/1055665620981331 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 105566562098133

Author(s):

Alyssa Fritz ◽

Diana S. Jodeh ◽

Fatima Qamar ◽

James J. Cray ◽

S. Alex Rottgers

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Oral Health ◽

Cleft Palate ◽

Fistula Repair ◽

Old Patients ◽

Oronasal Fistula ◽

Patient Reported ◽

History Of ◽

The Impact

Introduction: Oronasal fistulae following palatoplasty may affect patients’ quality of life by impacting their ability to eat, speak, and maintain oral hygiene. We aimed to quantify the impact of previous oronasal fistula repair on patients’ quality of life using patient-reported outcome psychometric tools. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 8- to 9-year-old patients with cleft palate and/or lip was completed. Patients who had a cleft team clinic between September 2018 and August 2019 were recruited. Participants were divided into 2 groups (no fistula, prior fistula repair). Differences in the individual CLEFT-Q and Child Oral Health Impact Profile-Short Form 19 (COHIP-SF 19) Oral Health scores between the 2 groups were evaluated using a multivariate analysis controlling for Veau classification and syndromic diagnosis. Results: Sixty patients with a history of cleft palate were included. Forty-two (70%) patients had an associated cleft lip. Thirty-two (53.3%) patients had no history of fistula and 28 (46.7%) patients had undergone a fistula repair. CLEFT-Q Dental, Jaw, and Speech Function were all higher in patients without a history of a fistula repair; however, none of these differences were statistically significant. The COHIP-SF 19 Oral Health score demonstrated a significantly lower score in the fistula group, indicating poorer oral health ( P = .05). Conclusions: One would expect that successful repair of a fistula would result in improved function and patient satisfaction, but the consistent trend toward lower CLEFT-Q scores and significantly increased COHIP-SF 19 Oral Health scores in our study group suggests that residual effects linger and that the morbidity of a fistula may not be completely treated with a secondary correction.

Download Full-text

Impact on Quality of Life of Patients Treated by Different File Systems for Root Canal Treatment

Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1722108 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

L.S. Priyanka ◽

Lakshmi Nidhi Rao ◽

Aditya Shetty ◽

Mithra N. Hegde ◽

Chitharanjan Shetty

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Oral Health ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Root Canal ◽

File Systems ◽

Study Groups ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Related Quality ◽

The Impact

Abstract Introduction The outcomes of oral health conditions and therapy for those conditions are described by the term “oral health-related quality of life.” Oral health-related quality of life is recognized by the World Health Organization as an important part of the Global Oral Health Program. The study aims to compare the impact of three root canal preparation systems on patients’ quality of life and correlate postoperative pain with the impact on the quality of life. Materials and Methods A survey was performed in which 90 patients were randomly assigned to three groups based on the root canal preparation system: (1) ProTaper Gold (Dentsply, Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States), (2) Neoendo flex (Neoendo, India),and (3) Hyflex EDM/CM (Coltene Whaledent) that included 30 participants in each group. Data collection included the implementation of a demographic data questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (quality of life), and visual analogue scale(pain). The questionnaire was given after root canal treatment in the first 24 hours. The data obtained were statistically analyzed. Results No significant differences were found in the quality of life among study groups. Group 1 demonstrated a highly significant difference in the postoperative pain with p value of 2.67. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, Protaper Gold showed a highly significant difference in postoperative pain when compared with other file systems. No significant differences were found in the quality of life among the study groups.

Download Full-text