Investigating the Quality of Communication between Dentists and Dental Technicians in Iran

Objectives Well-formed communication between dentists and dental technicians is an important factor for the fabrication of dental prostheses. Numerous articles have highlighted the lack of sufficient communication between dental clinics and laboratories. The present study aimed to assess the communication between dentists and dental technicians in Iran. Methods In this cross-sectional study, a structured questionnaire containing 23 questions about the effectiveness of communication between dentists and dental laboratories was distributed among 154 dental technicians. After data collection, the data were entered into SPSS-24 software and analyzed. Independent t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze the data with independent variables. Results The communication between dental laboratory and clinic had a significant relationship with gender, job characteristics, laboratory location, and laboratory activity in all areas (p-value <0.001). Moreover, 77.3% of the participants perceived their communication as constructive and encouraging, and 50% believed that the dentist followed their opinion after consulting with the dental prosthesis laboratory. Conclusion Training in medical professionalism, as an essential element contributing to communication between dentists and dental technicians, must be included in the dental schools’ curricula

Communication Between Dentists and Dental Technicians During the Fabrication of Removable Partial Dentures in Khartoum State, Sudan

Svrha rada: Željela se istražiti kvaliteta komunikacije između doktora dentalne medicine i zubnih tehničara u privatnim dentalnim laboratorijima u sudanskoj pokrajini Khartoumu kad je riječ o izradi mobilnih djelomičnih proteza. Metode: Obavljena je deskriptivna analiza poprečnog presjeka te se razgovaralo sa zubnim tehničarima o kvaliteti uputa koje su dobili od doktora dentalne medicine u vezi s izradom mobilnih djelomičnih proteza (removable partial denture – RPD). Bilo je uključeno 69 akrilatnih proteza (A-RPD) i 11 od kobalt-kroma (CC-RPD). Rezultati: Doktori dentalne medicine nisu dali upute u 21,7 % slučajeva za izradu A-RPD-a, no dali su ih u svim slučajevima za CC-RPD-e. Upute su uglavnom bile usmene (55,1 % za A-RPD, 54,5 % za CC-RPD), a rjeđe napisane (23,3 % za A-RPD, 45,5 % za CC-RPD). Većina konstrukcijskih komponenti za A-RPD i CC-RPD nisu bile jasno opisane, a izričite su bile samo u 8,7 % slučajeva za A-RPD-e i 36,4 % slučajeva za CC-RPD-e. Značajno je da je liječnik modele kontrolirao u samo u 18,2 % slučajeva kad je riječ o CC-RPD-u. Većina tehničara (84,2 %) vjeruje da je oblikovanje proteze odgovornost doktora. Tehničari su u vezi s CC-RPD-om trebali znatno češće (p = 0,004) razgovarati s doktorima te ih tražiti objašnjenje za njihovo oblikovanje. Zaključak: Kvaliteta komunikacije između doktora dentalne medicine i privatnih laboratorijskih zubnih tehničara u pokrajini Khartoumu o izradi mobilne parcijalne proteze bila je uglavnom nedovoljna.Objectives: To investigate the quality of communication between dentists and dental laboratory technicians in private dental laboratories in Khartoum State related to fabrication of removable partial dentures. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study, in which dental technicians were interviewed regarding the quality of instructions they received from dentists concerning the construction of removable partial dentures (RPD). Eighty cases were investigated, 69 acrylic (A-RPD) and 11 cobalt chromium (CC-RPD) dentures. Results: Although dentists provided no instructions in 21.7% of A-RPD cases, they gave instructions in all CC-RPD cases. Instructions were primarily given verbally (55.1% in A-RPD, 54.5% in CC-RPD cases), as opposed to written (23.3% in A-RPD, 45.5% in CCRPD cases). Most design components for A-RPD and CC-RPD cases were not clearly prescribed, and instructions were clear in only 8.7% of A-RPD and 36.4% of CC-RPD cases. Notably, surveying of casts by dentists was only done in 18.2% of CC-RPD cases. Most technicians (84.2%) believed that prosthesis design was the dentists’ responsibility. Technicians needed to contact dentists for clarification of design significantly more frequently for CC-RPD (p=0.004) cases. Conclusion: Quality of communication between dentists and private laboratory technicians in Khartoum State with regard to removable partial denture construction was largely inadequate

Errores más comunes en la fabricación de trabajos protésicos por mala comunicación entre el técnico dental y el odontólogo.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Entre el técnico dental y el odontólogo, la comunicación debe ser específica, tanto en las técnicas como en los materiales a utilizar en un trabajo protésico; por ello, no se debe restar importancia a los canales de comunicación en el trabajo interdisciplinario. En la actualidad, son muchas las herramientas tecnológicas que sirven para lograr una comunicación efectiva, reduciendo los errores que generan insatisfacción en el resultado final. OBJETIVO: Identificar la relevancia que tiene la comunicación entre el técnico dental y el odontólogo para obtener eficiencia en los trabajos protésicos. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo analítico a 32 técnicos dentales y 34 odontólogos del área de rehabilitación oral. ANÁLISIS Y DISCUSIÓN DE RESULTADOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo analítico; a través de encuestas y con la ayuda del software Rstudio, donde observamos un análisis univariado con una distribución de frecuencias relativas, para poder establecer cómo impacta la mala comunicación entre el técnico dental y el odontólogo en el resultado de un trabajo protésico. Resultados: Se revisaron 5 aspectos donde se analizó las variables: Factores relevantes en la comunicación técnico dental y odontólogo; obstáculos para una correcta comunicación técnico dental y odontólogo; método de selección de color; herramientas digitales y herramientas analógicas. CONCLUSIONES: Luego del estudio realizado se concluye que la comunicación oportuna tiene una relevancia definitiva para un tratamiento eficiente y que las herramientas tecnológicas contribuyen al éxito del trabajo odontológico, pues disminuye la mala comunicación entre el técnico dental y el odontólogo.INTRODUCTION: Communication isn’t just a process in which one can stablish social relationships with the people, but it’s also a determining factor when getting efficient results at work. Instructions must be detailed between the dentist and the dental technician, all the materials and technical specifications that will be used in the prosthetic work; because of all this details the channels of communication must not be undermined, nowadays, there are technological tools that are useful to achieve an effective communication, with no middleman that may create misunderstandings that leads to mistakes, that result in unsatisfaction of the final work. OBJECTIVE: Identify the relevance of communication between the dental technician and the dentist to obtain efficiency in prosthetic work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive and analytic research was performed, in which 32 dental technicians and 34 oral rehabilitator dentists were consulted. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: Data was collected through surveys and analyzed through Rstudio software, first, we observed a single-variable analysis with its corresponding relative frequency to establish how bad communication between the two parties impacts the result of the prosthetic work. RESULTS: 5 aspects were analyzed: relevant factors in the communication between parties, obstacles faced in the correct communication between parties, selection method for color, digital tools, analog tools. CONCLUSION: We can finally conclude that the communication has a definitive relevance in an efficient treatment and that technological tools contribute to the success of a dental work, because it lowers bad communication between the dental technician and the dentist

LLUSD Articulator - Volume 30, Number 2

Contents: 6 | Dean\u27s Circle member assemble at ESRI11 | PNAM celebrates tenth anniversary15 | From street life to restoration18 | Applications for 3D printing in dentistry25 | LLUSD research publications31 | Riverside\u27s fifth Long Night35 | Profiling Lee Ingersollhttps://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/articulator/1017/thumbnail.jp

Public Health Rep

Denturism, an organized movement by dental laboratory technicians to increase their control over the provision of denture services to the public, has generated a great deal of controversy among members of organized dentistry, the National Denturist Association, the Federal Trade Commission, consumer groups, and prepaid dental plans.Denturism is currently legal in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon. In the first three States, the denturist must practice under the supervision of a dentist, but in Oregon the denturist is able to enter independent practice.The American Dental Association has held that a denturist is educationally unqualified to provide denture services directly to the consumer, Representatives of organized dentistry have characterized denturists as untrained and unskilled persons who would endanger the public's health and return one phase of dentistry to the apprentice system. They see denturism as constituting a major step backward in health care delivery and having an adverse effect on preventive dental care.The National Denturist Association, however, defines a denturist as a highly skilled person who specializes in the making of full and partial dentures. Denturists maintain that the dentist is an unnecessary middleman in the provision of denture services and is the primary cause of the high cost of dental prostheses. They contend that State dental laws providing that only dentists may render denture services have led to the high cost of these services without contributing significantly to the health and safety of the public.Organized dentistry in the United States has been fighting denturism in a number of ways. One that has met with considerable success has been the establishment of programs to provide people access to dental care, especially denture services, at lower costs. A second alternative under consideration is to license denturists but require them to practice under the supervision of a dentist. A third alternative under discussion is to expand the duties of existing dental auxiliary personnel.The final decision on denturism, however, will not be made by the dental profession or the denturists, but by the voting public and their elected representatives, based on the evidence they have before them.19817291472PMCnull741