Survey of All Water Treatment Plant Operators Who Fluoridate Drinking Water in Ohio

Author Institution: Department of Community Dentistry, School of Dentistry, and Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve UniversityOhio like several other states in the US is mandated by law to optimally fluoridate all public water systems serving over 5000 people. The purpose of this study was three-fold: 1) to determine if Ohioans on public water supplies are receiving optimally fluoridated water, 2) to determine the knowledge level of water treatment plant operators who fluoridate drinking water, and 3) to compare small and large water treatment plants. A pre-tested survey was sent to all 224 water treatment plants that adjust the fluoride concentration of drinking water in Ohio. A 100% response rate was accomplished, with 93 small and 131 large water treatment plants responding. A z-test was computed to compare proportions between small and large water treatment plants. Significance was assessed at p <0.05. Nearly 90% of water treatment plant operators correctly identified the optimal fluoride level, however almost 30% used incorrect means of determining the optimal level. Approximately three-quarters of the water treatment plant operators were able to maintain the fluoride concentration to within 0.1 mg F/L of their optimal level. A significantly greater proportion of large water treatment plant operators were able to maintain a fluoride concentration to within 0.1 mg F/L of their optimum level when compared to small water treatment plant operators (83.2% vs 60.2%, z = 3.60, p <0.05). Most water treatment plant operators are knowledgeable concerning fluoride levels, however small water treatment plant operators may need additional technical assistance to reach the level attained by large plants

Dental Hygiene Education and Hiring Practices of Dentists in Ohio

Purpose: As education and clinical preparation affect employment opportunities for entry-level dental hygienists, dentists’ perceptions of recent graduates should be considered when reforming education requirements. The purpose of this study is to examine general dentists’ preferences for employing entry-level dental hygienists from two-year versus four-year degree programs by surveying the opinions of dentists in Ohio. Method: A survey was distributed from June to September 2004, to a sample of 700 general dentists practicing in Ohio, all alumni of Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine. The survey included questions on hiring preference, salary, value of work experience, and applicable science and dentistry knowledge. Results: Fifty-six percent of responding dentists (n=225) have no preference for hiring a recent four-year dental hygiene graduate over a recent two-year graduate. Furthermore, the majority of responding dentists are not willing to pay a higher salary to recent graduates of four-year degree programs, including those with a hygienist holding a baccalaureate degree. Responding dentists perceive greater science knowledge among recent four-year graduates, but equal knowledge of performing prophylaxis and patient care among graduates of both programs. Conclusion: Two-thirds of responding dentists believe differences between recent two-year and four-year dental hygiene graduates no longer exist after two years of work experience. Perceptions of the significant role of work experience in training suggest that future reforms in dental hygiene education should incorporate more clinical experience to advance the professional capabilities of entry-level hygienists