Foreign service special care opportunity in SCDA

A foreign service clinic in Guatemala caring for patients with special needs was initiated by joining SCDA efforts with the Open Wide Foundation. The trip included five SCDA members: two AEGD residents and three support staff. Open Wide participants included the Executive Director, the Clinical Director in Guatemala, as well as two dentists, dental support staff, and Guatemalan dental students. Two physician anesthesiologists provided general anesthesia. Care adjuncts included general anesthesia, oral sedation, and medical stabilization. Lessons learned: (1) Conducting a dental clinic for patients with special needs is possible and relatively easy to accomplish, given a partnership with a foundation that agrees with and facilitates this service; (2) advance planning is required to maximize the service provided; (3) committed and flexible team members can accomplish a significant amount of care in a short period of time; and (4) limited but invaluable training of in‐country healthcare providers is possible. The Special Care Dentistry Association is long known for service and care delivery to patients with special needs by its members, and for its advocacy and organizational support for these activities. A foreign service opportunity in Guatemala, Central America, was sought out by members of the SCDA to further the outreach efforts of the organization, give members clinical experience in a foreign setting, and train in‐country providers to deliver care to patients with special needs. This was the first effort by SCDA members to host a clinic to deliver care specifically to patients with special needs outside of North America.     

Oral health and quality of life of children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis according to their caregivers’ perceptions

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between oral health indicators and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) according to their caregivers’ perceptions. Parents or guardians (mean age, 40.6 years; standard deviation [SD] = 10.97 years) of children and adolescents with JIA (n = 17; mean age, 9.8 years; SD = 2.86) and parents or guardians of healthy children and adolescents (n = 15; mean age, 10.7 years; SD = 2.16) filled the short form of the Brazilian Parental‐Caregiver Questionnaire (SF: 13 – B‐PCPQ). Dental evaluations were performed on all children. There was no significant difference in SF: 13 – B‐PCPQ scores of the two groups. Children and adolescents with JIA had fewer caries in their primary dentition and more gingival bleeding after probing than those without JIA. The frequency of temporomandibular disorders was 50.0% for JIA patients and 46.7% for their healthy counterparts. There was no correlation between oral health indicators and SF: 13 – B‐PCPQ scores. As perceived by caregivers, JIA did not negatively impact the well‐being of their children and adolescents as related to oral health, and their OHRQoL did not correlate with oral health status.     

Usefulness of the Aesthetic Result as a Success Criterion for Implant Therapy: A Review

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to review the reported evaluation criteria of the aesthetic result in oral implant rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration, and EMBASE was performed to retrieve studies published between January 1990 and December 2008 using the following key words: “dental implants,”“clinical trial,” and “aesthetic index” (and their synonyms). A manual search of the literature published in the same period was also carried out using the following publications: Clinical Oral Implant Research, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, and The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. The inclusion criteria of the published studies were the following: human clinical trial, oral implant rehabilitation, at least 10 implants, at least 6 months of follow‐up from insertion of the prosthesis, and evaluation of the aesthetic result by means of an index. Results: The literature search revealed 650 relevant bibliographic references, of which 89 were selected for further analysis. A final total of 29 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; these included 10 retrospective case series, 11 prospective case series, 1 retrospective controlled clinical trial, 1 prospective controlled clinical trial, and 6 randomized controlled clinical trials. In general, evaluations of aesthetic results appear only in the more recent studies and refer mostly to implant rehabilitation in the maxillary anterior zone; the index used, in most cases, was the Papilla Index of Jemt. Conclusions: Although there appears to be a growing interest in aesthetics in dental implantology, there are as yet no universally accepted evaluation criteria of the aesthetic result. Therefore, further research is necessary to establish a common, complete, and reproducible index for the evaluation of aesthetic outcome that can add in the success criteria for implant therapy in the maxillary and mandibular anterior areas.