Stainless-steel crowns in children : Norwegian and Finnish dentists' knowledge, practice and challenges

BackgroundStainless-steel crowns (SSCs) are recommended for restorative treatment of young teeth severely affected by caries, fractures or dental developmental disorders (DDDs). However, despite recommendations and clinical evidence, SSCs are not widely used by general dentists, who favour extraction and more conventional restorations. The present study aimed to investigate the views of and use of SSCs among Norwegian and Finnish dentists.MethodsThe present study was a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian and Finnish dentists. An electronic questionnaire was sent to Norwegian and Finnish dentists asking whether they used SSCs and on which indications. In addition, the questionnaire assessed reasons for non-use and dentists' perceptions regarding advantages and challenges in the use of SSCs, as well as the need for additional training. Distributions of background characteristics, use of and views on SSCs were calculated, and statistical significance of the associations between respondents' background and their answers were evaluated.ResultsOf the 574 Norwegian and 765 Finnish respondents, only 12.0% and 12.9% reported to use SSCs, respectively. The most frequently reported barrier reported by those who did not use SSCs was lack of practical training. The most frequent challenge reported by those using SSCs was difficulties in crown adjustment followed by aesthetic issues, and the most frequently reported advantage was that SSCs maintain the function and occlusion. The majority of respondents reported a need for more information and practical training in the use of SSCs, with hands-on course as their most frequently preferred education type.ConclusionAlthough the value of SSCs for restoring young molars is recognized by Norwegian and Finnish dentists, SSCs are rarely used by general dentists. The majority of the respondents reported lack of training and materials and was interested in receiving more information and education.Peer reviewe

Treatment decisions regarding caries and dental developmental defects in children - a questionnaire-based study among Norwegian dentists

Background Current knowledge on treatment strategies and choice of restorative materials when treating deep caries or severe dental developmental defects (DDDs) in young individuals is scarce. Therefore, the aim was to investigate Norwegian dentists´ treatment decisions and reasons for treatment choice when treating deep caries in primary teeth and severe DDDs in permanent teeth in children. Methods A pre-coded questionnaire was sent electronically to all dentists employed in the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Norway (n = 1294). The clinicians were asked about their background characteristics and how often they registered DDDs. Three clinical cases were presented to the dentists and asked to prioritize treatment options and reasons for their choice. Results After three reminders, 45.8% of the dentists answered. Most clinicians were general practitioners (96.3%), females (77.9%), under 41 year-olds (59.4%), graduated in 2001 or later (61.1%), and representing all regions of Norway. The respondents registered molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH), other DDDs and dental fluorosis (DF) frequently, 523 (91.1%), 257 (44.8%) and 158 (27.5%), respectively. In case 1a with severe dental caries in a primary molar, the preferred treatment was resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (58.3%), followed by glass ionomer cement (GIC) (17.9%) and zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) (13.2%). Extraction, compomer or stainless steel crowns (SSC) were preferred by 0.9, 0.7 and 0.4%, respectively. In case 1b, which was identical to case 1a, but treated under general anaesthesia, the preferred treatment alternatives were RMGIC (37.1%), resin composite (RC) (17.6%) and GIC (17.2%). Extraction and SSC were chosen by 15.1 and 7.2%, respectively. In case 2, showing a severely hypomineralised and symptomatic first permanent molar, the dentists preferred RC (38.4%), followed by RMGIC (26.6%) and GIC (19.0%). Extraction and SSC were chosen by 8.7 and 5.4%, respectively. The treatment choices were not significantly affected by the dentists’ background characteristics. The reasons for dentists’ treatment decisions varied for each patient case; patient cooperation, prognosis of the tooth and own experience were the dominant reasons. Conclusions A notable disparity in treatment choices was shown indicating that Norwegian dentists evaluate each case individually and base their decisions on what they consider best for the individual patient

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dental health personnel in Norway

Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic put a pressure on all healthcare professionals and has affected the delivery of health care services globally. There is a need to understand the impact on different health care professionals in different countries. The aim of the present study was to explore the psychological impact of the pandemic among dental staff in Norway in relation to background characteristics, work situation and preparedness of the service. Methods A structured questionnaire sent electronically to dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants inquired information about the lockdown period in Norway (13 March-17 April 2020). Distributions of background characteristics, perceptions of preparedness and psychological impact were calculated. Exploratory factor analysis was performed, and Structural Equation Models (SEMs) were used to compare psychological impact between dental professionals treating patients versus not during lockdown. Results Among the 1237 respondents, 58.8% worked clinically with patients. The majority were concerned of becoming infected (71.9%), of infecting others (85.4%) and/or of their family becoming infected (76.9%). Respondents who treated patients felt significantly more insecure about whether having become infected or not. The minority felt discriminated (6.7%), worried about death (11.7%), felt that life was threatening (9.8%) or felt loss of control of their lives (8.9%). More than 80% agreed that their workplace handled the situation well. Four factors were retrieved from the factor analysis. SEMs showed that gender and work experience had a significant effect on the factors Instability, Infection and Concerns. Respondents with work experience ≥10 years were less likely to express fear about Instability and Infection. Personnel reporting that their workplace had adequate equipment were also less concerned, however having adequate equipment did not reduce the factor Loss of control. Conclusion The present study showed a considerable psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dental personnel in Norway regardless of working clinically with patients or not. However, working with patients increased the insecurity about own infection status and of infecting people close to them. A safe working environment and adequate infection control measures are associated with less fear of infection and feeling of instability

One year of COVID-19 in dental health services in Norway: psychological impact, risk perceptions and vaccination status

Abstract Background Increased psychological pressure on oral healthcare professionals (OHP) due to COVID-19 has been shown, yet little is known about the long-term psychological impacts. We aimed to study the psychological impact of COVID-19 and associated factors including perceived risk and preparedness and vaccination status among OHP in the first year after the lockdown period in Norway. Methods A structured questionnaire sent electronically to dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants inquired experiences and perceptions during the second year following the outbreak in Norway. The questionnaire comprised a COVID-19 fear scale and questions about risk perception, preparedness and vaccination status. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used to assess psychological impact, perception of risk and preparedness according to vaccination status of the respondents. Results The majority of the 708 respondents were female (92.8%), had ten or more years of work experience (67.1%), and worked in public dental clinics (95.9%). Fears and concerns related to COVID-19 were common, 72.6% feared getting infected and 85.4% feared infecting others. Of the 642 respondents who agreed that their workplaces handled the situation well, 55.6% were fully vaccinated. Three factors were retrieved from EFA: Insecurity, Instability and Infection. SEM showed that females were more concerned with Infection, and respondents with long clinical experience were less likely to express fear about Instability. Fully vaccinated individuals felt more insecure about becoming infected, and those agreeing that their workplaces handled the current situation well were concerned with Insecurity. Conclusions Despite widespread perception of adequate preparedness and high vaccine coverage, a considerable psychological impact and high levels of fear of COVID-19 were observed among the majority of OHP. Fully vaccinated individuals had a larger psychological burden than not fully vaccinated and those with unknown vaccination status. These findings can inform means and interventions to reduce negative impacts of fear in populations with a high psychological burden

Prevention of snus use:attitudes and activities in the Public Dental Service in the south‐eastern part of Norway

Abstract Dental health care professionals have the opportunity to play a key role in tobacco prevention and cessation among adolescents. Snus use has increased in Norway, especially in the age group 16–24, whereas there has been a decline in smoking. This study investigated attitudes and activities related to snus prevention among dental health care professionals working in the Public Dental Service (PDS) in south‐eastern Norway. A web‐based survey with a total of 557 dentists and dental hygienists in seven counties in Norway, with a response rate of 53.5%, was carried out in 2017. Dentists’ and dental hygienists’ activities regarding preventive snus use intervention were analysed using the chi‐square test. Intervention was measured with a score (1–5) based on four questions. Bivariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate the associations between the explanatory variables of attitudes/activities and the outcome intervention variable. Approximately 87% of the dentists and 58% of the dental hygienists were not familiar with the “minimum intervention method” for tobacco prevention and cessation. Dental hygienists were most active in informing and supporting their patients in prevention and cessation of snus use. The PDS is an underutilized arena for tobacco prevention and cessation among adolescents, and the intervention potential is particularly high among the dentists