scholarly journals Knowledge, Attitude, And Practices Of Dental Professionals Regarding Management Of Medically Compromised Patients During Dental Extractions

2021 ◽  
pp. 4190-4194
Author(s):  
M. P. Santhosh kumar
Keyword(s):  
Dental Professionals ◽  
Compromised Patients

scholarly journals Psychological Backgrounds of Medically Compromised Patients and Its Implication in Dentistry: A Narrative Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8792
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Abiko ◽  
Durga Paudel ◽  
Hirofumi Matsuoka ◽  
Mitsuru Moriya ◽  
Akira Toyofuku
Keyword(s):  
Dental Treatment ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Stress Disorders ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Dental Patients ◽  
Panic Disorders ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Dental Professionals ◽  
Compromised Patients

The number of medically compromised dental patients is increasing every year with the increase in the super-aged population. Many of these patients have underlying psychiatric problems and diseases, which need to be recognized by dental professionals for better treatment outcomes. The aim of this narrative review article is to summarize the psychological and psychiatric backgrounds of medically compromised patients who are frequently visited and taken care of by dentists using findings from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Anxiety and symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, panic disorders, poor cognitive functions, and poor quality of life were some of the common psychological backgrounds in medically compromised patients. Additionally, the consequences of these psychological problems and the considerations that need to be taken by the dentist while treating these patients have been discussed. Dental professionals should be aware of and recognize the different psychological backgrounds of medically compromised dental patients in order to provide appropriate dental treatment and to prevent oral conditions from worsening.

Gingerol Derivatives as 14α-demethylase Inhibitors: Design and Development of Natural, Safe Antifungals for Immune-compromised Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 918-928
Author(s):  
Sweta Sharma ◽  
Arpita Yadav
Keyword(s):  
Cell Membranes ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Dynamics Simulation ◽  
Stable Complex ◽  
Active Site Residues ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Triazole Derivative ◽  
Fungal Cell ◽  
Term Administration ◽  
Compromised Patients

Background: : Currently, clinically used drugs for internal fungal infections have severe side effects. Patients suffering from severe fungal infections and those at a constant risk of developing such infections require long-term administration of safe antifungals. Objective: : This work deals with the design and development of safe, non-toxic antifungals derived from natural compounds for immune-compromised patients, such as HIV patients, who are at a constant risk of developing internal fungal infections. Methods: : Molecular modeling, docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies were performed on the main constituents of ginger and their derivatives to study their capability to inhibit 14α- demethylase enzyme. Results: : Ergosterol is the key component of the fungal cell membrane for its integrity and rigidity, synthesized from lanosterol catalyzed by 14α-demethylase enzyme. In our studies, it is determined that 6-gingerol, 6-paradol, 6-shogaol and their imidazole and triazole derivatives can inhibit the synthesis of ergosterol thus weakening the fungal cell membranes. The triazole derivative of 6-gingerol forms enhanced binding interactions with the active site residues of 14α-demethylase, carries an affinity for catalytically required cofactor heme and forms a stable complex with time without the probability of premature expulsion. Thus, this compound inhibits the formation of ergosterol leading to weakened fungal cell membranes and eventually death of fungal cells. Conclusion: : The triazole derivative of 6-gingerol is recommended as a lead compound for the development of non-toxic antifungals.

Medical Device Regulation: Requirements for Dental Professionals Who Prescribe and Manufacture Custom-Made Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-88
Author(s):  
James I. J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Custom Made ◽  
Dental Setting ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dental Professionals ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

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.

scholarly journals Legal Requirements for Infection Prevention and Control Training Among Healthcare Personnel

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s70-s70
Author(s):  
Lauren Weil ◽  
Alexa Limeres ◽  
Astha KC ◽  
Carissa Holmes ◽  
Tara Holiday ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Content Areas ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Training Content ◽  
And Control ◽  
Dental Professionals

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document