![Burs - Grinding Tools[1]](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/577d1efc1a28ab4e1e8fae89/burs-grinding-tools1.jpg)
SURVEY OF DENTAL BURS USAGE
1
I76 fridc.v to Dcwrul Litcwfurc(1DL). IDL has been published since 192 I, covers English language literature ofdentistry for the years 1839 to date, and added in other languages starting with the 1962 annual volume. In 1965 IDL became part of the MEDLARS data base and is available on-line using MeSH, or in the hard copy from the American Dental Association. In 1979 approxi- mately 1.100 subscribers around the world received quarterly cumulative and annual volumes. Of these, about 24 were in Australia. but the University of Queensland was not one of them. Australian Dental Journal. June. I980 If any readers have questions about either the Black Dental Classification or the IDL, I would be happy to try to answer them individually. AL.FII{A KowirL, Editor, Index to Dental Literature. Director. Bureau of Library Services. 21 I East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 60611, U.S.A. March 13. 1980. DENTAL HEALTH EOUC24T/ON Sir, Approximately one-third of operational time in the South Australian School Dental Programme will be available for dental health education in 1981, not 80-90 per cent as deduced by Dr Robertson Au.strrr/im Dcv7ttrl Joirrntrl. 25: 1. 37 (Feb.) 1980. He made a series of mistakes which were cumulative in their effects. For example: ~~ (I) He implied in the calculations that operational time is restricted to restorative care and dental health education. In fact. time saved as a result of reduced restorative needs leads to an increased patient load per therapist, and therefore to more examinations and more preventive and other clinical services not simply to more dental health education. Moreover therapists’ administrative duties have been found to increase markedly as patient loads increase. Therapists must spend niore time enrolling patients, updating medical histories, arranging appointments. implementing referral programmes, administering fluoride mouthrinsing pro- grammes. extracting data from records for evaluative purposes. answering the telephone and performing general receptionist duties. In other words, all the time saved through reduced restorative needs is not re- directed to dental health education. (2) He profoundly overestimated tlie number of full- time-equivalent dental operators likely to be employed in 1981. With a workforce comprised almost entirely of young adult females, there are always many staff inembers out of the workforce at any one time. For example. approximately 40 full-time-equivalent staff are expected to be lost during 1980 through reduction from full-time to part-time employment, and from leave without pay for accouchement and other rcasoiis. Moreover large numbers of clinics will operate without dental nurses. Dr Robertson also underestimated annual treatment need by not accounting for pre-school patients and, to some extent. by underestimating the rate of participation ofchildren in the school dental programme in Huoridated areas (the rate is 80 per cent. not 70 per cent). In addition, he treated point prevalence data as an expression of cumulative need for care over a one-year period leading to a further understatement of need. I agree that if the strictest scientific interpretation of “proof.’ is employed. proof of dental health education benefits cannot be considered absolute. However. it’ lack of absolute scientific proof of benefits indicates that an approach to care is “somewhat experimental”. then much of Dr Robertson’s own practice could bc termed somewhat experimental. particularly the pre- ventive aspects. This situation would apply to most dental practice in government and privatc sectors alike. and to other health and social welpare services. Data are rarely available to demonstrate conclusively the benefits of various aspects of health care as practised in everyday situations. Because conclusive proof 01’ benefits usually would be ditlicult (if not impossible) to obtain. health care always will remain a mixture of art and science. At least the School Dental Service collects data to facilitate evaluation in this diHicult area. DAVII) Ro~i K. South Australian Hcalth Cominission. Dental Health Branch. 49 Hindmarsh Square, Adelaide, S.A., 5000. March 14. 1980. SURVEY OF DENTAL BURS USAGE Sir. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I am writing to you in your capacity as Editor to pass on a message of thanks, via the Journal. to all members who in mid-April co-operated by tilling in a questionnaire on the use of dental burs. Abbotsford, Vic., 3067. For their information, it is expected that the results will be processed by May, and the results made available for publication. ROCiFK EDWAKIIS, Principal Materials Scientist, Australian Dental Standards Laboratory, 240 Langridge Street, April 8, 1980.
-
Upload
roger-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of SURVEY OF DENTAL BURS USAGE
I76
fridc.v to Dcwrul Litcwfurc(1DL). IDL has been published since 192 I , covers English language literature ofdentistry for the years 1839 to date, and added in other languages starting with the 1962 annual volume. In 1965 IDL became part of the MEDLARS data base and is available on-line using MeSH, or in the hard copy from the American Dental Association. In 1979 approxi- mately 1.100 subscribers around the world received quarterly cumulative and annual volumes. Of these, about 24 were in Australia. but the University of Queensland was not one of them.
Australian Dental Journal. June. I980
If any readers have questions about either the Black Dental Classification or the IDL, I would be happy to try to answer them individually.
AL.FII{A KowirL, Editor,
Index to Dental Literature. Director.
Bureau of Library Services. 21 I East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, I l l . 60611, U.S.A. March 13. 1980.
DENTAL HEALTH EOUC24T/ON
Sir, Approximately one-third of operational time in the
South Australian School Dental Programme will be available for dental health education in 1981, not 80-90 per cent as deduced by Dr Robertson Au.strrr/im Dcv7ttrl Joirrntrl. 25: 1. 37 (Feb.) 1980.
He made a series of mistakes which were cumulative in their effects. For example: ~~
( I ) He implied in the calculations that operational time is restricted to restorative care and dental health education. In fact. time saved as a result of reduced restorative needs leads t o an increased patient load per therapist, and therefore to more examinations and more preventive and other clinical services not simply to more dental health education. Moreover therapists’ administrative duties have been found to increase markedly as patient loads increase. Therapists must spend niore time enrolling patients, updating medical histories, arranging appointments. implementing referral programmes, administering fluoride mouthrinsing pro- grammes. extracting data from records for evaluative purposes. answering the telephone and performing general receptionist duties. In other words, all the time saved through reduced restorative needs is not re- directed to dental health education.
( 2 ) He profoundly overestimated tlie number of full- time-equivalent dental operators likely to be employed in 1981. With a workforce comprised almost entirely of young adult females, there are always many staff inembers out of the workforce at any one time. For example. approximately 40 full-time-equivalent staff are expected t o be lost during 1980 through reduction from full-time to part-time employment, and from leave without pay for accouchement and other rcasoiis.
Moreover large numbers of clinics will operate without dental nurses.
Dr Robertson also underestimated annual treatment need by not accounting for pre-school patients and, to some extent. by underestimating the rate of participation ofchildren in the school dental programme in Huoridated areas (the rate is 80 per cent. not 70 per cent). In addition, he treated point prevalence data as an expression of cumulative need for care over a one-year period leading to a further understatement of need.
I agree that if the strictest scientific interpretation of “proof.’ is employed. proof of dental health education benefits cannot be considered absolute. However. it’ lack of absolute scientific proof of benefits indicates that an approach to care is “somewhat experimental”. then much of Dr Robertson’s own practice could bc termed somewhat experimental. particularly the pre- ventive aspects. This situation would apply to most dental practice in government and privatc sectors alike. and to other health and social welpare services.
Data are rarely available t o demonstrate conclusively the benefits of various aspects of health care as practised in everyday situations. Because conclusive proof 01’ benefits usually would be ditlicult ( i f not impossible) to obtain. health care always will remain a mixture of art and science. At least the School Dental Service collects data to facilitate evaluation in this diHicult area.
DAVII) R o ~ i K .
South Australian Hcalth Cominission. Dental Health Branch. 49 Hindmarsh Square, Adelaide, S.A., 5000. March 14. 1980.
SURVEY OF DENTAL BURS USAGE
Sir. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I am writing
to you in your capacity as Editor to pass on a message of thanks, via the Journal. to all members who in mid-April co-operated by tilling in a questionnaire on the use of dental burs. Abbotsford, Vic., 3067.
For their information, it is expected that the results
will be processed by May, and the results made available for publication. ROCiFK EDWAKIIS,
Principal Materials Scientist, Australian Dental Standards Laboratory,
240 Langridge Street,
April 8, 1980.
