Education of tobacco use prevention and cessation for dental professionals--a paradigm shift

The use of tobacco continues to be a substantial risk factor in the development and progression of oral cancer, periodontitis, implant failure and poor wound healing. Dental and dental hygiene education providers have made great advances towards the incorporation of tobacco education into their curricula in recent years. Unfortunately, however, both medical and dental education research has consistently reported schools providing only basic knowledge-based curricula that rarely incorporate more effective, behaviourally-based components affecting long-term change. The limited training of oral healthcare students, at least in part, is reflected in practising dental professionals continuing to report offering incomplete tobacco interventions. In order to prepare the next generation of oral healthcare providers, this paper proposes a paradigm shift in how tobacco use prevention and cessation (TUPAC) may be incorporated into existing curricula. It is suggested that schools should carefully consider: to what level of competency should TUPAC be trained in dental and dental hygiene schools; the importance of establishing rapport through good communication skills; the core knowledge level for TUPAC; suggested instructional and assessment strategies; the importance of continuing professional education for the enhancement of TUPAC.

Consensus Report: 2nd European Workshop on Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation for Oral Health Professionals

Tobacco use has been identified as a major risk factor for oral disorders such as cancer and periodontal disease. Tobacco use cessation (TUC) is associated with the potential for reversal of precancer, enhanced outcomes following periodontal treatment, and better periodontal status compared to patients who continue to smoke. Consequently, helping tobacco users to quit has become a part of both the responsibility of oral health professionals and the general practice of dentistry. TUC should consist of behavioural support, and if accompanied by pharmacotherapy, is more likely to be successful. It is widely accepted that appropriate compensation of TUC counselling would give oral health professionals greater incentives to provide these measures. Therefore, TUC-related compensation should be made accessible to all dental professionals and be in appropriate relation to other therapeutic interventions. International and national associations for oral health professionals are urged to act as advocates to promote population, community and individual initiatives in support of tobacco use prevention and cessation (TUPAC) counselling, including integration in undergraduate and graduate dental curricula. In order to facilitate the adoption of TUPAC strategies by oral health professionals, we propose a level of care model which includes 1) basic care: brief interventions for all patients in the dental practice to identify tobacco users, assess readiness to quit, and request permission to re-address at a subsequent visit, 2) intermediate care: interventions consisting of (brief) motivational interviewing sessions to build on readiness to quit, enlist resources to support change, and to include cessation medications, and 3) advanced care: intensive interventions to develop a detailed quit plan including the use of suitable pharmacotherapy. To ensure that the delivery of effective TUC becomes part of standard care, continuing education courses and updates should be implemented and offered to all oral health professionals on a regular basis.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

Facial attractiveness of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate and of controls assessed by laypersons and professionals.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to identify differences in the aesthetic evaluation of profile and frontal photographs of (1) patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate and (2) control patients by laypeople and professionals. MATERIALS, SUBJECTS, AND METHODS Left-side profile and frontal photographs of 20 adult patients treated for complete left-sided cleft lip and palate (10 men, 10 women, mean age: 20.5 years) and of 10 control patients with a class I occlusion (five men, five women, mean age: 22.1 years) were included in the study. The post-treatment photographs were evaluated by 15 adult laypeople, 14 orthodontists, and 10 maxillofacial surgeons. Each photograph was judged on a modified visual analogue scale (VA S, 0-10; 0 'very unattractive' to 10 'very attractive'). A four-level mixed model was fitted in which the VA S score was the dependent variable; cases, profession, view, and rater were independent variables. RESULTS Compared with laypersons, orthodontists gave higher VA S scores (+0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.53, 0.84]; P < 0.001), followed by surgeons (+0.21, 95% CI [0.03, 0.38], P = 0.02). Controls were given significantly higher scores than patients with clefts for profile and frontal photographs (+1.97, 95% CI [1.60; 2.35], P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between the scores for the frontal and lateral views (P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS All the different rater panels were less satisfied with the facial aesthetics of patients with clefts compared with that of control patients. Further research should evaluate whether these findings correlate with patients' self-perception and to what extent it affects the patients' psychosocial well-being.

Organoleptic assessment of halitosis for dental professionals - general recommendations

An organoleptic assessment of an odor is defined as a method that can measure the strength of target odors and expresses the value in terms of a point or number with reference to a pre-defined organoleptic scale. Organoleptic assessments are performed using different scales and are used widely in industry (e.g. for measuring the effectiveness of anti-odor agents), in research (to discover relationships between bad breath and microbiology of the tongue, or the generation of particular volatile compounds), but it is also a prerequisite for the diagnosis of halitosis in individual patients required before directing appropriate treatment. An organoleptic assessment of halitosis patients may be carried out in specialized institutions but--based on the fact that in most cases the odor originates from oral structures--also by dental professionals including general dental practitioners (GDPs). Thus, this paper describes the scientific background for recommendations on how a GDP or dental hygienist or general practitioner with cases of bad breath should use organoleptic methods as a valid approach to assess malodor in patients, with a view to diagnosis and treatment, and subsequent treatment monitoring.