No more smoke and mirrors

2022 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-32
Author(s):  
Rebecca Waters
Keyword(s):  

Rebecca Waters discusses how dental professionals can minimise aesthetic damage caused by smoking

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-88
Author(s):  
James I. J. Green

A custom-made device (CMD) is a medical device intended for the sole use of a particular patient. In a dental setting, CMDs include prosthodontic devices, orthodontic appliances, bruxism splints, speech prostheses and devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea, trauma prevention and orthognathic surgery facilitation (arch bars and interocclusal wafers). Since 1993, the production and provision of CMDs have been subject to European Union (EU) Directive 93/42/EEC (Medical Device Directive, MDD) given effect in the UK by The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (Statutory Instrument 2002/618), and its subsequent amendments. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation, EU MDR) replaces the MDD and the other EU Directive pertaining to Medical Devices, Council Directive 90/385/EEC (Active Implantable Medical Device Directive, AIMDD). The EU MDR was published on 5 April 2017, came into force on 25 May 2017 and, following a three-year transition period was due to be fully implemented and repeal the MDD on 26 May 2020, but was deferred until 26 May 2021 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the UK, in preparation for the country’s planned departure from the EU, the EU MDR, with necessary amendments, was transposed into UK law (Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK MDR). The UK left the Union on 31 January 2020 and entered a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020, meaning that, from 1 January 2021, dental professionals in Great Britain who prescribe and manufacture CMDs are mandated to do so in accordance with the new legislation while Northern Ireland remains in line with the EU legislation and implementation date. This paper sets out the requirements that relate to the production and provision of CMDs in a UK dental setting.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s70-s70
Author(s):  
Lauren Weil ◽  
Alexa Limeres ◽  
Astha KC ◽  
Carissa Holmes ◽  
Tara Holiday ◽  
...  

Background: When healthcare providers lack infection prevention and control (IPC) knowledge and skills, patient safety and quality of care can suffer. For this reason, state laws sometimes dictate IPC training; these requirements can be expressed as applying to various categories of healthcare personnel (HCP). We performed a preliminary assessment of the laws requiring IPC training across the United States. Methods: During February–July 2018, we searched WestlawNext, a legal database, for IPC training laws in 51 jurisdictions (50 states and Washington, DC). We used standard legal epidemiology methods, including an iterative search strategy to minimize results that were outside the scope of the coding criteria by reviewing results and refining search terms. A law was defined as a regulation or statute. Laws that include IPC training for healthcare personnel were collected for coding. Laws were coded to reflect applicable HCP categories and specific IPC training content areas. Results: A total of 278 laws requiring IPC training for HCP were identified (range, 1–19 per jurisdiction); 157 (56%) did not specify IPC training content areas. Among the 121 (44%) laws that did specify IPC content, 39 (32%) included training requirements that focused solely on worker protections (eg, sharps injury prevention and bloodborne pathogen protections for the healthcare provider). Among the 51 jurisdictions, dental professionals were the predominant targets: dental hygienists (n = 22; 43%), dentists (n = 20; 39%), and dental assistants (n = 18; 35%). The number of jurisdictions with laws requiring training for other HCP categories included the following: nursing assistants (n = 25; 49%), massage therapists (n = 11; 22%), registered nurses (n = 10; 20%), licensed practical nurses (n = 10; 20%), emergency medical technicians and paramedics (n = 9; 18%), dialysis technicians (n = 8; 18%), home health aides (n = 8;16%), nurse midwives (n = 7; 14%), pharmacy technicians (n = 7; 14%), pharmacists (n = 6; 12%), physician assistants (n = 4; 8%), podiatrists (n = 3; 6%), and physicians (n = 2; 4%). Conclusions: Although all jurisdictions had at least 1 healthcare personnel IPC training requirement, many of the laws lack specificity and some focus only on worker protections, rather than patient safety or quality of care. In addition, the categories of healthcare personnel regulated among jurisdictions varied widely, with dental professionals having the most training requirements. Additional IPC training requirements exist at the facility level, but this information was not analyzed as a part of this project. Further analysis is needed to inform our assessment and identify opportunities for improving IPC training requirements, such as requiring IPC training that more fully addresses patient protections.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Rayan Sharka ◽  
Jonathan P. San Diego ◽  
Melanie Nasseripour ◽  
Avijit Banerjee

Aims: This study aimed to identify the risk factors of using DSM to provide an insight into the inherent implications this has on dental professionals in practice and trainee professionals’ education. Materials and methods: Twenty-one participants (10 dental professionals and 11 undergraduate and postgraduate dental students) participated in this qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in a dental school in the UK. The interviews were analysed and categorised into themes, some of which were identified from previous literature (e.g., privacy and psychological risks) and others emerged from the data (e.g., deceptive and misleading information). Results: The thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified nine perceived risk themes. Three themes were associated with the use of DSM in the general context, and six themes were related to the use of DSM in professional and education context. Conclusions: This study provided evidence to understand the risk factors of using DSM in dental education and the profession, but the magnitude of these risks on the uptake and usefulness of DSM needs to be assessed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Hidenobu Senpuku ◽  
Masahiko Fukumoto ◽  
Toshikazu Uchiyama ◽  
Chieko Taguchi ◽  
Itaru Suzuki ◽  
...  

Dental professionals are at increased risk of being infected with airborne pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 because they are often exposed to droplets/aerosols production during dental treatment. To scientifically clear the effects of extraoral and oral suctions on the droplets and aerosols produced by dental treatments using an ultrasonic scaler was analyzed. The adenosine triphosphate and bacteria in droplets and aerosols produced during simulated scaling were quantitatively observed by reactions with luciferin/luciferase and incubation in culture plates to grow bacteria, respectively. The protection against spreading droplets and aerosols by oral and extraoral suctions was recognized, and the areas were limited to the left and posterior sides of the dental chair head when a right-handed dentist and dental hygienist performed scaling. Extraoral suction is a very useful tool for reducing the infection risk of COVID-19 in dental care, but the effective area is limited depending on physical characteristics of dentist and dental hygienist.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document