Purpose Health care professionals (HCPs) working collaboratively can improve patient outcomes and also increase their understanding of each other’s professional roles. This descriptive study aimed to explore dental hygienists’ perceptions of collaboration with dentists and intraprofessional educational (IntraPE) experiences.Methods A convenience sampling method was used to assess DHs perceptions of collaboration with dentists using the Interprofessional Collaboration Scale (ICS), a validated scale that measures perceptions of communication, accommodation, and isolation among HCPs. One open-ended question was added to explore IntraPE. Demographics, work characteristics and responses from the ICS were analyzed using frequency, mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s correlation, t-test, ANOVA, and multivariable regression. Responses from the open-ended question were transcribed, organized, and coded. Themes were identified using the Delve Qualitative Analysis Tool.Results Of the 264 participants, the average age was 38.9, and most identified as female (98.9%). Data analysis revealed that DHs had positive perceptions of collaboration with dentists. Significant relationships were found between ICS factor accommodation and the average number of patients treated per day (rs = −0.242, p<0.001), dentists’ age (rs = −.145, p<0.05). Isolation showed a significant negative correlation with the average number of patients treated per day (rs = −0.156, p<0.05). Most reported having no opportunities for IntraPE education experiences with dentists. Five categories of themes were identified from the open-ended question: shared academic setting, clinic dentist, externships, desire for more shared learning, and shared patient experiences.Conclusion Dental hygienists in this study had an overall more positive than negative perception of collaboration with dentists. Dental and dental hygiene programs should focus on intraprofessional education experiences to continue to enhance collaboration.

Purpose Dental professionals are exposed to hazardous noise levels on a daily basis in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the hearing status of dental hygienists who utilize ultrasonic scalers in the workplace compared to age-matched control participants (non-dental hygienists) who were not exposed to ultrasonic noise.Methods A convenience sample of nineteen dental hygienists (experimental) and nineteen non-dental hygienists (control) was recruited for this study. A matched pairs design was utilized; participants in each group were matched based on age and gender to eliminate confounding variables. The testing procedure consisted of an audiologist performing a series of auditory tests including otoacoustic emissions test, pure-tone audiometry, and tympanometry on the experimental and control groups.Results In the right ear, there were notable differences from 1000 Hz – 10,000 Hz and in the left ear from 6000 Hz – 10,000 Hz, with higher hearing thresholds in the experimental group of dental hygienists. While 56% of the univariate tests conducted on how many days were worked per week showed statistical significance, the regression line slope indicated those that worked more days had better hearing statuses. The variables for years in practice for dental hygienists, how many of those years were full-time employment, and how many years the dental hygienist had used an ultrasonic scaling device, also had many significant univariate tests for the experimental group only. These variables were more likely to serve as proxies representing true noise exposure. The paired t-test between the groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the experimental and control group at 9000 Hz in both ears.Conclusion While results from this study demonstrated various qualitative differences in hearing status of the control group (non-dental hygienists) and experimental group (dental hygienists), age was found to be the most critical variable. Furthermore, this data demonstrated differences in hearing status based on various frequencies between dental hygienists and age-matched controls that should be further explored with a larger population.

A lack of guidance for some non-essential dental treatments is causing concern for hygienists and assistants as clinics reopen in Alberta during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dental students in North American dental schools are exposed to faculty members with various professional backgrounds. These faculty members may include dentists, dental hygienists, and scientists without clinical dental credentials. The practice of dental hygienists’ educating predoctoral dental students has not been well documented. The aims of this two-part study were to investigate the parameters of didactic, preclinical, and clinical instruction of dental students by dental hygienist faculty members in North American dental schools and to explore dental students’ perceptions of this form of teaching. In part one, a survey was sent electronically to the clinical or academic affairs deans of all 76 American Dental Education Association (ADEA) member dental schools in 2017. Twenty-nine responded, for a 38.2% response rate. In 76% of the responding schools, dental hygienists were teaching dental students. Most respondents reported that, in their schools, the minimum degree required to teach didactically was a master’s, while a bachelor’s degree was required for preclinical and clinical courses. There was no significant association between dental hygienists’ instructing dental students and having a dental hygiene educational program at the institution. In part two of the study, a questionnaire was completed by 102 graduating dental students (85% response rate) at one U.S. university to evaluate the impact of dental hygienist educators. Among the respondents, 87% reported feeling that dental hygienists were very effective educators. There were no significant differences in responses between traditional and advanced standing international dental students. This study found that dental hygienists were educating dental students in many North American dental schools and were doing so in curricular content beyond periodontics and that their educational contributions at a sample school were valued by the dental students there.

Few studies have been published on thesis completion experiences of master’s degree students. However, for doctoral students, dissertation completion has been found to be dependent on individual, relational, and institutional factors. The aim of this study was to examine dental hygienists’ perceptions of their experiences completing a thesis as a requirement for an advanced degree. A qualitative phenomenological research design was used utilizing virtual focus groups with a national purposive sample of dental hygienists (n=25) who had graduated from a degree program in which a thesis was a requirement for the degree. Data analysis used an inductive approach to identify themes using Liechty et al.’s framework of individual, relational, and institutional factors impacting completion of a dissertation. Liechty et al.’s framework is based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning. In the results, individual factors identified included family/work responsibilities, lack of understanding of the thesis process, time management, health issues, and reaching personal and professional goals. Relational factors focused primarily on positive and negative experiences with the thesis advisor/committee and support from expert peers/family. Institutional factors included the thesis structure, financial concerns, and challenges in recruiting research participants. This study found many factors influencing the thesis experience that may help guide the process in graduate degree programs. In addition, the findings suggest a need to provide mentoring and support for thesis advisors and committee members to more effectively guide students through the thesis process. Effective modifications of these may improve retention of students and facilitate timely completion of thesis research.

Purpose: Untreated and poorly controlled diabetes causes increased levels of blood glucose associated with poor periodontal disease outcomes. Dental hygienists can play a significant role in screening patients for diabetes mellitus, leading to referral and early diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers faced by clinical dental hygienists regarding diabetes risk assessment and screenings.Methods: A mixed method design was used with a convenience sample of dental hygienists in clinical practice (n=316). A 32 item, electronic survey was validated at item-level, and participants were recruited through multiple dental hygiene Facebook groups. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The survey also included two open-ended attitude questions that were interpreted using thematic analysis to pinpoint common patterns within the data.Results: Dental hygienists had high knowledge scores regarding diabetes and oral health, although many were unaware of their states' specific statutes and regulations for screening practices. Nearly all (95.9%), were likely to educate and refer patients (82%), although fewer than half (40.9%), were likely to perform chairside screening for diabetes. Emergent themes for barriers to screening were time, money, patient acceptance/willingness, lack of education, not having the proper tools, and states' rules and regulations.Conclusion: Despite high knowledge scores regarding diabetes and oral health, there is a gap in regards to dental hygienists' willingness to perform diabetes screenings in a clinical setting. Dental hygienists should be capable of integrating chairside diabetes screening practices into the process of care with proper training.