Education for specialization in prosthodontics in Switzerland and the role of EPA.

Advertisement for any dental treatment was rare in Switzerland. Then the use of digital media became popular, particularly in the field of implant- and esthetic-dentistry. In parallel to the dental schools of public universities, private universities and companies built up centers for continuing education that issue specialists diplomas and M.Sc. degrees. Prosthodontics itself is characterized by many sub-disciplines that incorporated their own associations. These also offer graduate training curricula which diminish the significance of specialization in prosthodontics. Specialized prosthodontists do not have a financial benefit in Switzerland where dentistry is not supported by any insurance. In other European countries funding of prosthodontic treatment depends on their healthcare systems. There are four specialties in Dentistry recognized by the European Union (EU). Specialization in prosthodontics was introduced in Sweden already in 1982 and today it is declared in about 20 European countries, while for others no recognized program exists. Thus there are great variations with more recognized specialists in former east European countries. In Switzerland the prosthodontic specialization curriculum was developed and guided by the Swiss Society for Reconstructive Dentistry, and only in 2001 it became fully acknowledged by the Federal Department of Health. The four Swiss Universities offer the 3-year program under the supervision of the society, while the government remains the executive body. In 2003 EPA tried to set up guidelines and quality standards for an EPA recognized specialization. In spite of these attempts and the Bologna Reform in Europe, it appears that the quality standards and the level of education still may differ significantly among European countries.

Management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction according to European and American guidelines.

AIMS To highlight differences between the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS ESC 2012 and ACCF/AHA 2013 guidelines on the management of STEMI were systematically reviewed for consistency. Recommendations were matched, directly compared in terms of class of recommendation and level of evidence, and classified as "identical", "overlapping", or "different". Out of 32 recommendations compared, 26 recommendations (81%) were classified as identical or overlapping, and six recommendations (19%) were classified as different. Most diverging recommendations were related to minor differences in class of recommendation between the two documents. This applies to recommendations for reperfusion therapy >12 hours after symptom onset, immediate transfer of all patients after fibrinolytic therapy, rescue PCI for patients with failed fibrinolysis, and intra-aortic balloon pump use in patients with cardiogenic shock. More substantial differences were observed with respect to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS The majority of recommendations for the management of STEMI according to ESC and ACCF/AHA guidelines were identical or overlapping. Differences were explained by gaps in available evidence, in which case expert consensus differed between European and American guidelines due to divergence in interpretation, perception, and culture of medical practice. Systematic comparisons of European and American guidelines are valuable and indicate that interpretation of available evidence leads to agreement in the vast majority of topics. The latter is indirect support for the process of review and guideline preparation on both sides of the Atlantic.

ISVI-IUA consensus document - diagnostic guidelines on vascular anomalies: vascular malformations and hemangiomas.

The diagnostic approach to vascular anomalies should include the distinction between vascular tumors (i.e. hemangiomas) and congential vascular malformations (CVMs). This step is based more on history and clinical examination rather than on instrumental evaluation. In children Duplex ultrasound and histology can be helpful to separate hypervasularized tumors from CVMs. Appropriate record of objective measures as size or flow volume is required in order to evaluate the progress of the pathology and/or to assess the results of adopted therapeutic interventions. The anatomic, pathological and hemodynamic characteristics, the secondary effects on the surrounding tissues and the systemic manifestations should be defined. Basic diagnostic tools are Duplex sonography followed by MRI or CT scanning. The definition of the vascular anomaly should be according to the Hamburg classification and should separate vascular tumors from vacular malformations followed by separation of high flow from low flow CVMs. Diagnostic investigations are best undertaken at centers where subsequent therapeutic interventions will be performed.

SADMFR guidelines for the use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/ Digital Volume Tomography

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) has been introduced in 1998. This radiological imaging procedure has been provided for dentistry and is comparable to computed tomography (CT) in medicine. It is expected that CBCT will have the same success in dental diagnostic imaging as computed tomography had in medicine. Just as CT is responsible for a significant rise in radiation dose to the population from medical X-ray diagnostics, CBCT studies will be accompanied by a significant increase of the dose to our patients by dentistry. Because of the growing concern for an uncritical and consequently rapidly increasing use of CBCT the Swiss Society of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology convened a first consensus conference in 2011 to formulate indications for CBCT, which can be used as guidelines. In this meeting, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics and temporomandibular joint disorders and diseases were treated and the most important and most experienced users of DVT in these areas were asked to participate. In general, a highly restrictive use of CBCT is required. Justifying main criterion for CBCT application is that additional, therapy-relevant information is expected that should lead to a significant benefit in patient care. All users of CBCT should have completed a structured, high-level training, just like that offered by the Swiss Society of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology.