Trends of periodontal conditions in two different randomly selected Swiss (Bernese) cohorts 25 years apart

AIM To assess the periodontal conditions of two randomly selected Swiss cohorts 25 years apart. MATERIAL AND METHODS Standardized examinations were performed to assess the periodontal conditions of two randomly selected populations of the Canton of Bern; oral cleanliness was evaluated using the plaque index (PlI) and the retention index (RI). Gingival health was scored according to the gingival index (GI). Periodontal conditions were evaluated by pocket probing depth (PPD) and loss of attachment (LA). RESULTS At the first examination in 1985, 206 out of 350 subjects were evaluated, while in the second examination in 2010, 134 out of 490 subjects attended the examinations. In 1985, subjects showed a mean PlI of 1.16, and 0.77 in 2010. RI was 0.81 and 0.36 in 1985 and 2010 respectively. Mean GI was 1.34 and 0.6. The mean proportion of PPD ≤3 mm was 72% in 1985 and 97.3% in 2010. PPD ≥ 6 mm affected 2.0% in 1985 and 0.3% in 2010. In 1985, subjects had an average of 20.7 teeth, while in 2010, the average was 24.6. In 1985, 7.3% of the subjects were edentulous, while in 2010, 4.5% had no teeth. CONCLUSIONS Trends to improvements resulting in more teeth in function and better periodontal conditions were recognized.

Short structured feedback training is equivalent to a mechanical feedback device in two-rescuer BLS: a randomised simulation study.

BACKGROUND Resuscitation guidelines encourage the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices implying better outcomes after sudden cardiac arrest. Whether effective continuous feedback could also be given verbally by a second rescuer ("human feedback") has not been investigated yet. We, therefore, compared the effect of human feedback to a CPR feedback device. METHODS In an open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial, we compared CPR performance of three groups of medical students in a two-rescuer scenario. Group "sCPR" was taught standard BLS without continuous feedback, serving as control. Group "mfCPR" was taught BLS with mechanical audio-visual feedback (HeartStart MRx with Q-CPR-Technology™). Group "hfCPR" was taught standard BLS with human feedback. Afterwards, 326 medical students performed two-rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8 min. CPR quality parameters, such as "effective compression ratio" (ECR: compressions with correct hand position, depth and complete decompression multiplied by flow-time fraction), and other compression, ventilation and time-related parameters were assessed for all groups. RESULTS ECR was comparable between the hfCPR and the mfCPR group (0.33 vs. 0.35, p = 0.435). The hfCPR group needed less time until starting chest compressions (2 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001) and showed fewer incorrect decompressions (26 vs. 33 %, p = 0.044). On the other hand, absolute hands-off time was higher in the hfCPR group (67 vs. 60 s, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS The quality of CPR with human feedback or by using a mechanical audio-visual feedback device was similar. Further studies should investigate whether extended human feedback training could further increase CPR quality at comparable costs for training.