Explore the vast range of titles available.

We examined progress in US children's oral health and dental public health infrastructure since the Healthy People 2010 Oral Health Objectives were issued. We summarize trends in the prevalence of dental caries and dental sealants on the basis of national and state-specific data. Trends in state oral health program activities, funding, and staffing were derived from annual surveys. The prevalence of dental caries in primary teeth of children aged 2–4 years increased from 18% in 1988–1994 to 24% in 1999–2004. Racial disparities persisted in that age group, with caries significantly more prevalent among non-Hispanic black and Mexican American children than among non-Hispanic white children. Caries prevalence in primary teeth of non-Hispanic white children aged 6–8 years remained unchanged, but increased among non-Hispanic black and Mexican American children. State-specific prevalence of caries among third-graders ranged from 40.6% to 72.2%. Caries in permanent teeth declined among children and adolescents, while the prevalence of dental sealants increased significantly. State oral health programs' funding and staffing remained modest, although the proportion of states with sealant programs increased 75% in 2000 to 85% in 2007 and the proportion with fluoride varnish programs increased from 13% to 53%. Progress toward improving the oral health of America during the past decade has been mixed. Greater attention to the oral health of young children is clearly needed, and child health professionals can be valuable partners in the effort. With continued high prevalence of a largely preventable disease, ongoing problems with access to basic oral health services, and increased national attention to health care reform, there is a clear need and opportunity for governments to make serious and sustained investments in dental public health.

The World Federation of Public Health Associations' Oral Health Working Group (WFPHA OHWG) carried out a survey to establish the extent of global dental public health (DPH) capacity. Senior stakeholders in DPH completed 124 surveys, covering 73 countries and all WHO regions. The survey evaluated DPH workforce within the country, funding, education, current services, and integration between public health and DPH in countries across the world. In 62 per cent of countries, DPH is only partially integrated in the public health system, while in 25 per cent of countries it has not yet been formally integrated. DPH programs at Masters level are available in 44 per cent of countries. Over half of countries have 0 to 10 trained DPH professionals. Because both poor oral and general health share several common risk factors, DPH must be integrated into national health systems and budgets, with an emphasis on having trained DPH specialists available in every country to collaborate in healthcare policy and provision.

Why are Americans so uniquely obsessed with teeth? Brilliantly white, straight teeth?Making the American Mouthis at once a history of United States dentistry and a study of a billion-dollar industry. Alyssa Picard chronicles the forces that limited Americans' access to dental care in the early twentieth century and the ways dentists worked to expand that access--and improve the public image of their profession. Comprehensive in scope, this work describes how dentists' early public health commitments withered under the strain of fights over fluoride, mid-century social movements for racial and gender equity, and pressure to insure dental costs. It explains how dentists came to promote cosmetic services, and why Americans were so eager to purchase them. As we move into the twentyfirst century, dentists' success in shaping their industry means that for many, the perfect American smile will remain a distant--though tantalizing--dream.

Though it is highly preventable, tooth decay is a common chronic disease both in the United States and worldwide. Evidence shows that decay and other oral diseases may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. However, individuals and many health care professionals remain unaware of the risk factors and preventive approaches for many oral diseases. They do not fully appreciate how oral health affects overall health and well-being.In Advancing Oral Health in America, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) highlights the vital role that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can play in improving oral health and oral health care in the United States. The IOM recommends that HHS design an oral health initiative which has clearly articulated goals, is coordinated effectively, adequately funded and has high-level accountability. In addition, the IOM stresses three key areas needed for successfully maintaining oral health as a priority issue: strong leadership, sustained interest, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. Advancing Oral Health in America provides practical recommendations that the Department of Health and Human Services can use to improve oral health care in America. The report will serve as a vital resource for federal health agencies, health care professionals, policy makers, researchers, and public and private health organizations.

The emerging concept of prospective health care would shift the focus of health care from disease management to disease prevention and health management. Dentistry has a unique opportunity to embrace this model of prospective and collaborative care and focus on the management of oral health. Academic dentistry must better prepare future dentists to succeed in this new health care environment by providing them with the scientific and technical knowledge required to understand and assess risk and practice disease prevention. Dental schools must consider creating career pathways for enabling future graduates to assume important leadership roles that will advance a prospective oral health care system.

Objectives. We sought to determine the proportion of dental care provided at safety net–type clinics that might be performed by midlevel practitioners. Methods. Data were obtained on 157 328 procedures performed in 2012 at the clinics associated with a Midwestern dental school. Based on procedure codes, we determined the overall proportion, as well as the proportion of visits and patients’ care, that could have been performed by 3 types of practitioners. Results. Overall, 48% to 66% of all procedures could have been performed by a midlevel dental practitioner. Nearly half of all visits, and roughly a third of all patients, could have been entirely cared for by a practitioner trained in prophylaxis and with evaluation capabilities. Such practitioners could handle roughly 80% of the visits at the community-based clinic and more than half of the visits at the hospital-based clinic. Conclusions. A midlevel practitioner with training in prophylaxis has the potential to alleviate much of the burden on the dental safety net because much of the need among vulnerable populations falls well within their scope of practice.

The aim of this pilot study was to describe the advantages of telemedicine (TM) in dental practice during the current national emergency condition due to the Covid-19 dissemination. At Department of Oral Surgery and Pathology—Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, regional reference center for Covid-19—two groups of patients were determined: patients with urgent conditions (group U) and patients in follow-up (group F). Both groups were instructed to implement remote consultations using a messaging service (WhatsApp Messenger, WhatsApp Inc., Mountain View, California, USA) to send photos. A total of 418 photos were collected by 57 patients. Thirty-four photos were obtained by five patients in the U group after surgical procedures. All patients sent photos on the established evening, except for two patients who sent two photos outside the set days. In the F group, 384 photos were collected by 52 patients. None of them sent more photos than the number that was established by the protocol. Telemedicine allowed a monitoring of all patients, reducing costs and limiting human contact, decreasing the risk of Covid-19 dissemination.

All-in-one resource in for everything related to fluoridated water, from its impact on dental health to its safety and cost-effectiveness in Q&A format.

Access to oral health care is essential to promoting and maintaining overall health and well-being, yet only half of the population visits a dentist each year. Poor and minority children are less likely to have access to oral health care than are their nonpoor and nonminority peers. Older adults, people who live in rural areas, and disabled individuals, uniformly confront access barriers, regardless of their financial resources. The consequences of these disparities in access to oral health care can lead to a number of conditions including malnutrition, childhood speech problems, infections, diabetes, heart disease, and premature births. Improving Access to Oral Health Care for Vulnerable and Underserved Populations examines the scope and consequences of inadequate access to oral health services in the United States and recommends ways to combat the economic, structural, geographic, and cultural factors that prevent access to regular, quality care. The report suggests changing funding and reimbursement for dental care; expanding the oral health work force by training doctors, nurses, and other nondental professionals to recognize risk for oral diseases; and revamping regulatory, educational, and administrative practices. It also recommends changes to incorporate oral health care into overall health care. These recommendations support the creation of a diverse workforce that is competent, compensated, and authorized to serve vulnerable and underserved populations across the life cycle. The recommendations provided in Improving Access to Oral Health Care for Vulnerable and Underserved Populations will help direct the efforts of federal, state, and local government agencies; policy makers; health professionals in all fields; private and public health organizations; licensing and accreditation bodies; educational institutions; health care researchers; and philanthropic and advocacy organizations.