F. A. C. Wright

Dental service provision in Victorian residential aged care facilities

BACKGROUND The Australian population is ageing, and a growing proportion of elderly Australians are now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). These residents are at high risk of developing dental diseases, have more teeth present now than at any time in the past 50 years and often have difficulty maintaining adequate oral hygiene. Traditionally, dental service provision has been problematic and sporadic for these residents. METHODS A postal survey of a random sample of Victorian general dentists and Directors of Nursing (DONs) of Victorian RACFs was undertaken in 2006 to ascertain the participation of dentists in the provision of dental care and to identify factors impacting on the organization and provision of dental care for residents. RESULTS The response rate for dentists was 57.3 per cent, and for DONs 64.4 per cent. Half of the dentists reported that they had provided care to residents of aged care facilities in the past 12 months, and they spent an average of one hour per month providing care. Overall, dentists were concerned with their level of undergraduate education and training in various aspects of dentistry for residents of aged care facilities. DONs reported significant difficulty obtaining adequate dental care for their residents. Common problems identified by both dentists and DONs included a preference for dentists to treat residents in their own practice, dentists not willing to go to RACFs and a lack of portable dental equipment for dentists to use. CONCLUSIONS There were low levels of interest and participation from Victorian dentists in providing dental care for residents of aged care facilities. Dentists had a strong preference for treating patients at their own practice, and there were a number of significant barriers that appeared to impact on the provision of dental care in RACFs.

Utilizing dental hygienists to undertake dental examination and referral in residential aged care facilities

OBJECTIVE The Australian population is ageing, and a growing proportion of elderly Australians are now living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). These residents are commonly dependent on others for their daily oral hygiene care and often display high levels of plaque and calculus. With declining edentulism rates, periodontal disease is becoming more prevalent in this population. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a dental hygienist to undertake a dental examination for residents of aged care facilities, devise a periodontal and preventive treatment plan and refer patients appropriately to a dentist. METHODS A total of 510 residents from 31 Victorian RACFs were examined, with 275 dentate residents included in this study. Between May 2005 and June 2006, residents were examined by a single experienced dental epidemiologist and one of four dental hygienists using a plane mouth mirror and periodontal probe. RESULTS A total of 510 residents from 31 RACFs had a dental examination from a dentist and one of four dental hygienists. The treatment needs of residents examined were high, with nearly all of the 275 dentate residents requiring preventive and periodontal treatment, and three-quarters requiring referral to a dentist for treatment. There was excellent agreement between the dentist and hygienists regarding the decision to refer residents to a dentist for treatment, with high sensitivity (99.6%) and specificity (82.9%). Only 8.0% of residents were referred by a hygienist to a dentist when the dentist considered that no referral was required. CONCLUSIONS Dental hygienists have the skills and knowledge necessary for undertaking a dental examination for residents, correctly identifying the majority of residents who require a referral to a dentist. They are capable of formulating appropriate dental hygiene treatment plans for residents of aged care facilities. It is recommended that there should be greater utilization of hygienists in the provision of dental care to residents of aged care facilities, as a safe, efficient and effective use of health resources.

The impact of changing dental needs on cost savings from fluoridation

BACKGROUND Although community water fluoridation has been one of the cornerstone strategies for the prevention and control of dental caries, questions are still raised regarding its cost-effectiveness. This study assessed the impact of changing dental needs on the cost savings from community water fluoridation in Australia. METHODS Net costs were estimated as Costs((programme)) minus Costs((averted caries).) Averted costs were estimated as the product of caries increment in non-fluoridated community, effectiveness of fluoridation and the cost of a carious surface. Modelling considered four age-cohorts: 6-20, 21-45, 46-65 and 66+ years and three time points 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Cost of a carious surface was estimated by conventional and complex methods. Real discount rates (4, 7 (base) and 10%) were utilized. RESULTS With base-case assumptions, the average annual cost savings/person, using Australian dollars at the 2005 level, ranged from

Reforming the mission of public dental services

56.41 (1970s) to

Orthodontic treatment need of secondary schoolchildren in Heidelberg, Victoria: an epidemiologic study using the Dental Aesthetic Index.

17.75 (1990s) (conventional method) and from

Oral Health Among Vietnamese Using a Community Health Centre in Richmond, Victoria

249.45 (1970s) to

The efficacy and effectiveness of a primary preventive dental programme in non-fluoridated areas of Victoria, Australia.

69.86 (1990s) (complex method). Under worst-case assumptions fluoridation remained cost-effective with cost savings ranging from

An evaluation of a primary preventive dental programme in non‐fluoridated areas of Victoria, Australia

24.15 (1970s) to

Workforce predictions: a situational analysis and critique of the World Health Organisation model.

3.87 (1990s) (conventional method) and

The oral health status and health behaviour of 12 and 15 year-old adolescents in Jakarta, Indonesia.

107.85 (1970s) and