Moffat Sm
University of Otago
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Moffat Sm.
British Dental Journal | 2011
Moffat Sm; Dawn E. Coates
Aims To determine the attitudes of New Zealand dentists and dental specialists towards employing dual-trained Oral Health (dental therapy/dental hygiene) graduates, their knowledge of the scopes of practice and practising requirements for Oral Health (OH) graduates, and the barriers to employment of these graduates.Materials and methods A postal questionnaire was sent to 600 dentists randomly selected from the Dental Council of New Zealand register, as well as all dental specialists on the register. All fifth-year dental students in 2008 were also surveyed.Results The response rates for the questionnaires were 66.8% for dentists, 64.5% for dental specialists (specialists) and 72.9% for dental students. Knowledge of the scopes of practice and practising requirements for OH graduates was limited in some areas. Fifty-nine percent of private dental practitioners (PDP dentists) and 53% of specialists would consider employing an OH graduate. The main reason given for not employing an OH graduate was insufficient physical space in the practice.Conclusion New Zealand dentists and dental specialists were receptive to employing OH graduates. Knowledge of the OH scopes of practice and practising requirements is likely to improve as more OH students graduate and start work. The OH graduates have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the dental team.
Frontiers in Public Health | 2017
Moffat Sm; Lyndie A. Foster Page; W. Murray Thomson
New Zealand’s School Dental Service (SDS) was founded in 1921, partly as a response to the “appalling” state of children’s teeth, but also at a time when social policy became centered on children’s health and welfare. Referring to the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) conceptual framework, this review reflects upon how SDS policy evolved in response to contemporary constraints, challenges, and opportunities and, in turn, affected oral health. Although the SDS played a crucial role in improving oral health for New Zealanders overall and, in particular, children, challenges in addressing oral health inequalities remain to this day. Supported by New Zealand’s Welfare State policies, the SDS expanded over several decades. Economic depression, war, and the “baby boom” affected its growth to some extent but, by 1976, all primary-aged children and most preschoolers were under its care. Despite SDS care, and the introduction of water fluoridation in the 1950s, oral health surveys in the 1970s observed that New Zealand children had heavily-filled teeth, and that adults lost their teeth early. Changes to SDS preventive and restorative practices reduced the average number of fillings per child by the early 1980s, but statistics then revealed substantial inequalities in child oral health, with Ma¯ ori and Pacific Island children faring worse than other children. In the 1990s, New Zealand underwent a series of major structural “reforms,” including changes to the health system and a degree of withdrawal of the Welfare State. As a result, children’s oral health deteriorated and inequalities not only persisted but also widened. By the beginning of the new millennium, reviews of the SDS noted that, as well as worsening oral health, equipment and facilities were run-down and the workforce was aging. In 2006, the New Zealand Government invested in a “reorientation” of the SDS to a Community Oral Health Service (COHS), focusing on prevention. Ten years on, initial evaluations of the COHS appear to be mostly positive, but oral health inequalities persevere. Innovative strategies at COHS level may improve oral health but inequalities will only be overcome by the implementation of policies that address the wider social determinants of health.
JDR Clinical & Translational Research | 2017
L.A. Foster Page; R. Ahmadi; Donald R. Schwass; S. Leon de la Barra; Moffat Sm; Meldrum Am; Thomson Wm
This study aimed to assess whether resin infiltration of primary molar proximal lesions is more effective than noninvasive measures in radiographically controlling carious lesion progression into the dentin. A split-mouth randomized controlled trial included 90 children, each with 2 proximal lesions confined to the inner half of the enamel or ≤0.5 mm into the dentin. For each child, lesions were randomly allocated to test (infiltration: DMG Icon preproduct and fluoride varnish) or control (fluoride varnish) status. The primary outcome measure was 24-mo radiographic lesion progression. Placement of a restoration during the study period was counted as lesion progression. Proportions of teeth with progressed lesions were compared using the McNemar test. Children also reported on the treatment’s acceptability to them. Children (46% female) ranged in age from 6 to 9 y. Their mean number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (d3mft) was 2.8 (SD 2.6). At baseline, 58% and 42% of children were at moderate and low risk, respectively. Test and control lesions presented with similar radiographic lesions at baseline. At the 24-mo follow-up, 6 children had moved and 30 teeth had exfoliated. In the test and control groups, 15 of 66 lesions (22.7%) and 30 of 69 lesions (43.5%) had progressed, respectively (P < 0.05). The 2-y therapeutic effect (based on pairwise radiographic readings) of infiltration over fluoride varnish was 20.8% (95% confidence interval, 10.6%−30.2%). Nearly all children (96.7%) had enjoyed their visit to the clinic, and more than two-thirds (72.2%) were not worried about returning for treatment. Infiltration is more efficacious than fluoride varnish for controlling carious lesion progression in proximal lesions in primary molars, and most children find the treatment acceptable (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTR.org.au ACTRN12611000827932). Knowledge Transfer Statement: These study findings can help clinicians decide which caries management approach they wish to use to prevent progression of proximal lesions in primary molars. With consideration of cost and patient preference, this information could lead to more appropriate therapeutic decisions.
Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology | 2014
David A. Nash; Jay W. Friedman; Kavita R. Mathu-Muju; Peter G. Robinson; Julie Satur; Moffat Sm; Rosemary Kardos; Edward C. M. Lo; Anthony Wong; Nasruddin Jaafar; Jos van den Heuvel; Prathip Phantumvanit; Eu Oy Chu; Rahul Naidu; Lesley Naidoo; Irving McKenzie; Eshani Fernando
Journal of Dental Education | 2009
Dawn E. Coates; Thomas B. Kardos; Moffat Sm; Rosemary Kardos
The New Zealand dental journal | 2004
Drummond Bk; Davidson Le; Williams Sm; Moffat Sm; Ayers Km
The New Zealand dental journal | 2009
Moffat Sm; Dawn E. Coates; Meldrum Am
The New Zealand dental journal | 2008
Samotoi A; Moffat Sm; Thomson Wm
The New Zealand dental journal | 2013
Foster Pl; Kang I; Vivienne Anderson; Thomson Wm; Meldrum Am; Moffat Sm
European Journal of Dental Education | 2018
L. Smith; Lee Adam; Moffat Sm; Meldrum Am; R. Ahmadi