Oral and general health are inextricable. In primary care, the fields of care by general practioners, youth healthcare, healthcare for older people and oral care are all distinctly separated. Healthcare professionals are increasingly confronted with the complexity and increase in Noncommunicable diseases (NCD's) and an aging population. The aetiology of NCD's in primary care concern the professional fields of all healthcare professionals mentioned, meaning that lifestyle-related risks might be prevented more effectively through collaboration. In primary care, the number of medically compromised people is on the rise and healthcare professionals encounter each other's patients, whose risks remain invisible to them. Through collaboration such problems could be faced more effectively. Better integration of oral care into primary care can also contribute to the quality of care and safety of care receivers, and reduce further inequality. In order to better design this integration with the help of innovation, more practicebased research and implementation is needed.

Education in the field of quality and safety in oral care still needs further development, both for students and teachers. Based on the current development of clinical practice guidelines in the field of oral care in the Netherlands, this article describes a proposal for implementing this as a 'quality of oral care' learning line in the dental school curricula. Within clinical educational practice and scientific training, students should become familiar with the development, assessment and application of clinical practice guidelines. Some proposals for embedding this new learning line in the curriculum are given. In order to further shape the learning line, close cooperation between the three dental schools and the Kennisinstituut Mondzorg (Institute for Knowledge Translation in Oral Care) in the Netherlands is recommended.

In 2014, an advisory report was published by a national working committee concerning how the current, applied method of evidence-based guideline development in healthcare can be used in oral care in a national guideline programme. In an independent Institute of Knowledge Translation in Oral Care, as yet to be established, primary and secondary oral care providers will participate in the programme in order to improve the quality of oral care in the Netherlands. With the launching of the Institute of Knowledge Translation in Oral Care, clinical guideline development will have the benefit of a structural approach, in which 3 successive steps can be distinguished: preparation, development and authorisation. In each of these steps, oral care providers and associations will be actively involved. In this way the aim is to give as much consideration as possible to the needs of those in the field of oral care in the choice of topics for guideline development and to secure the specific character of oral care in the actual establishment of guidelines for clinical practice.

Some decades ago the need for clinical decision-making based on the best available evidence, and in that way providing accountability for professional services to society, was emerging in health care. The main purpose was to translate innovative knowledge from reliable resources into clinical practice to prevent inappropriate and unsafe care. In oral care it is also diserable to carry out improvements and to make treatment decisions more transparent. Evidence-based decision-making is not self-evident, and the development and the use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are in their infancy. Recently, national agreement has been reached among professional associations, scientific societies and educational institutions regarding the content of a national structure for the development of evidence-based guidelines within an independent institute for knowledge translation (KiMo). Decennia geleden ontstond de behoefte om het klinisch handelen in de zorg af te stemmen op het beste bewijsmateriaal en daarmee aan de samenleving verantwoording af te leggen over het professioneel handelen. Het doel was om innovatieve kennis uit betrouwbare bronnen te implementeren in de dagelijkse praktijk om inadequate en onveilige zorg te beperken. In de mondzorg is verbetering en zichtbaar maken van het klinische handelen eveneens wenselijk. Op bewijs gebaseerde zorg is niet vanzelfsprekend en het gebruik van evidencebased richtlijnen verkeert nog in het beginstadium. Inmiddels is landelijk consensus bereikt tussen beroepsverenigingen, wetenschappelijke verenigingen en opleidingen over de inhoud van een landelijke structuur voor evidencebased richtlijnontwikkeling evenals over relevante begrippen en kernwaarden binnen een onafhankelijk kennisinstituut (Kennisinstituut Mondzorg, KiMo).

Some decades ago the need for clinical decision-making based on the best available evidence, and in that way providing accountability for professional services to society, was emerging in health care. The main purpose was to translate innovative knowledge from reliable resources into clinical practice to prevent inappropriate and unsafe care. In oral care it is also diserable to carry out improvements and to make treatment decisions more transparent. Evidence-based decision-making is not self-evident, and the development and the use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are in their infancy. Recently, national agreement has been reached among professional associations, scientific societies and educational institutions regarding the content of a national structure for the development of evidence-based guidelines within an independent institute for knowledge translation (KiMo).

Objective. Little is known about patient safety in primary oral healthcare. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze patient safety incidents in primary oral health care. Materials and methods. A random sample of 1000 patient records from 20 dental practices was reviewed retrospectively over 60 months. All adverse events (AEs) were noted: unintended events happening during treatment that resulted or could have resulted in harm to the patient. Results. A total of 46 (95% CI = 33-59) AEs was identified, of which 18 (95% CI = 10-26) were considered preventable. From these, 15 related to treatment, 10 to diagnostics and one to communication. Conclusions. The low incidence of AEs and absence of major harm to patients suggests that primary oral care is safe for patients. However, the low quality of record keeping may imply underestimation.

The preprosthetic treatment is a phase of the so-called patient-centred oral healthcare cycle. The goal of the preprosthetic treatment is the elimination of pathological conditions and of uncertainties and risks to the greatest extent possible. Teeth in a reduced occlusal system can be distinguished functionally as strategic, non-strategic, and undesirable. The most important objective of the preprosthetic treatment is to establish a positive prognosis for the strategic teeth. Specific aspects relevant to the preprosthetic treatment are: referral to a specialist, requesting a second opinion, inserting 1 or more oral implants, transitional treatments, and occlusal adjustments. Subsequently, the preprosthetic treatment is evaluated to assess whether healthy circumstances have been established for the intended treatment with single- or multi-unit fixed dental prostheses.

BackgroundProphylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the secondmolar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults.Search methodsWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases.Selection criteriaStudies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer.Data collection and analysisEight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information.Main resultsThis review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA.Primary outcomeNo eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of lifeSecondary outcomesWe found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection).Authors' conclusionsInsufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

To be able to make a well founded clinical decision on the basis of evidence, the concept of 'evidence based practice' offers a solution by making it possible to select the appropriate knowledge from the increasing amount of scientific clinical information. Competence is required to put the concept (combining the best available scientific clinical evidence, experience and skills of the dentist and preferences of the patient) into practice. To prepare the undergraduate student for future clinical practice, the Nijmegen dental school has adopted evidence based practice to be implemented from the first year of dental training. The experiences of both students and lecturers are modest. The probable reason is that many clinical decisions are (can be) taken on the basis of experience and routine. The challenge is to base life-long learning on the practice of evidence based dentistry.

ObjectivesTo develop content for an educational system for dental professionals to be used for patient-tailored evidence-based decisions regarding routine oral examinations (ROEs) and to test the model as a tool in dental education.MethodsInitially, an electronic database was developed comprising conclusive data of a structured literature search and 27 ROE clinical cases which were selected on predefined criteria. A RAND-modified Delphi procedure was successfully conducted with 31 multidisciplinary dental experts. Twenty-one selected risk factors for oral disease were assessed for feasibility and subsequently modelled into 19 risk based clinical vignettes, each representing a specific group of ROE-patients. Each vignette comprised all relevant clinical and non-clinical data. Expert judgements were collected including ROE-content, risk level, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Feedback regarding evidence was provided for each of the topics. A pilot with 35 experienced General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) was conducted to assess the reliability of the model for continuing professional development (CPD). Decisions made on content screening items, bitewing frequencies and recall interval were compared with expert opinions.ResultsA comprehensive set of clinical vignettes was developed. Expert consensus was reached with regard to risk factors to be applied, content of ROE-items, bitewing frequency and recall interval. Differences between GDPs and experts were found especially concerning recall length in low-risk patient groups.ConclusionsClinical vignettes provide a promising educational instrument for CPD to improve clinical performance. Further research is needed to test the reliability of these set of 19 vignettes.

BACKGROUND:Insight into the frequency and seriousness of potentially unsafe situations may be the first step towards improving patient safety. Most patient safety attention has been paid to patient safety in hospitals. However, in many countries, patients receive most of their healthcare in primary care settings. There is little concrete information about patient safety in primary care in the Netherlands. The overall aim of this study was to provide insight into the current patient safety issues in Dutch general practices, out-of-hours primary care centres, general dental practices, midwifery practices, and allied healthcare practices. The objectives of this study are: to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients; to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals; and to provide insight into patient safety management in primary care practices.DESIGN AND METHODS:The study consists of three parts: a retrospective patient record study of 1,000 records per practice type was conducted to determine the frequency, type, impact, and causes of incidents found in the records of primary care patients (objective one); a prospective component concerns an incident-reporting study in each of the participating practices, during two successive weeks, to determine the type, impact, and causes of incidents reported by Dutch healthcare professionals (objective two); to provide insight into patient safety management in Dutch primary care practices (objective three), we surveyed organizational and cultural items relating to patient safety. We analysed the incidents found in the retrospective patient record study and the prospective incident-reporting study by type of incident, causes (Eindhoven Classification Model), actual harm (severity-of-outcome domain of the International Taxonomy of Medical Errors in Primary Care), and probability of severe harm or death.DISCUSSION:To estimate the frequency of incidents was difficult. Much depended on the accuracy of the patient records and the professionals' consensus about which types of adverse events have to be recognized as incidents.

Mirjam Harmsen (M.Harmsen@iq.umcn.nl) Sander Gaal (S.Gaal@iq.umcn.nl) Simone van Dulmen (S.vanDulmen@iq.umcn.nl) Eimert de Feijter (E.deFeijter@iq.umcn.nl) Paul Giesen (P.Giesen@iq.umcn.nl) Annelies Jacobs (J.Jacobs@iq.umcn.nl) Lucie Martijn (L.Martijn@iq.umcn.nl) Theodorus Mettes (D.Mettes@dent.umcn.nl) Wim Verstappen (W.Verstappen@iq.umcn.nl) Ria Nijhuis-van der Sanden (R.Nijhuis@iq.umcn.nl) Michel Wensing (M.Wensing@iq.umcn.nl)

In Western European countries, dentists use standardized procedures, rather than individualized risk assessment, for routine oral examinations. The predictive hypothesis was that guideline implementation strategies based on multifaceted interventions would be more effective in patient care than the dissemination of guidelines only. A cluster-randomized trial was conducted, with groups of general dental practitioners (GDPs) as the unit of randomization. Patients were clustered within practices and prospectively enrolled in the trial. Patient data were collected from registration forms. The primary outcome measure was guideline-adherent recall assignment, and a secondary outcome measure was guideline-adherent bitewing frequency. The interventions consisted of online training, guideline dissemination, and educational sessions. For low-risk patients, guideline-adherent recall increased in the intervention group (+8%), which differed from the control group (−6.1%) (p = 0.01). Guideline-adherent bitewings showed mixed results. We conclude that multifaceted intervention had a moderate but relevant effect on the performance of GDPs, which is consistent with other findings in primary care.

In recent years various studies have been published which indicate that adverse events in health care facilities are the result of structural factors. In 2009 a national study was carried out in the Netherlands to gain insight into patient safety in primary care settings, including general dental practices. In 20 randomly selected practices, patient records were investigated and oral care professionals reported, during a period of 2 weeks, adverse events which occurred. For each practice, 2 researchers screened, with the help of a checklist, 50 randomly selected patient records covering a period of 1 year. A total of 8 preventable adverse events were found in the 1000 patient records (0.8%). Anonymous reports made during the 2 weeks of the research period resulted in 7 adverse events. Practically all of the adverse events had to do with diagnostics and treatment and resulted in limited harmful consequences for patients. On the basis of these results, oral care in general dental practice would appear to be safe, but the concept 'patient safety' is not at all or only minimally active among general dental practitioners. Regarding patient safety performance, improvement in the quality of record-keeping would be desirable.

OBJECTIVES:Elements of a routine oral examination (ROE) in dental practice may be determined by patients' oral status, as recommended by prevailing knowledge, as well as by other factors. Our aim was to identify patient and GDP characteristics associated with aspects of oral health assessment (OHA) and clinical management (CM) in patients with various oral conditions.METHODS:A prospective observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording of 1059 ROEs by 128 GDPs. A clinical case recording form was used to record oral health assessment, diagnoses made, and clinical management for each ROE. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (with random coefficients) were performed.RESULTS:Overall, 'patients' age' in domains OHA as well as CM was the most salient predictor, while 'positive attitude to periodontal screening' showed to be a prominent GDP-factor. Patient characteristics mostly involved in OHA and CM were 'disease-free period' (odds ratios from 0.21 to 0.66), 'oral health compliance' (odds ratios from 0.32 to 0.65) and 'risk for periodontal disease' (odds ratios from 1.79 to 4.97). 'Continuing professional development' (odds ratios from 2.54 to 4.95), 'mean reading hours' (odds ratios from 2.25 to 4.48) and 'cooperation with peers' (odds ratios from 2.78 to 3.72) showed to be significant GDP-predictors.CONCLUSIONS:ROEs are determined by patient oral health status, particularly by aspects of oral health compliance and risk for oral disease, but also by GDP characteristics. The latter may reflect perceptions of a professional role, which need to be considered in efforts to improve the quality of ROE in oral care.

Klinische praktijkrichtlijnen zijn een bij uitstek geschikt middel voor het op een effectieve en efficiente manier op peil houden van de kennis over een specifiek klinisch onderwerp. Zij zijn opgebouwd uit de klinische expertise van de dagelijkse praktijk, het wetenschappelijke bewijs uit publicaties en de mening van patienten. Samen vormen zij de kern van het gedachtegoed van de ‘evidence-based’ tandheelkunde. De ontwikkeling van klinische praktijkrichtlijnen dient te geschieden volgens een vast protocol. Hierbij wordt gebruikgemaakt van systematische literatuuroverzichten. De Cochrane Collaboration is een organisatie die dergelijke literatuuroverzichten ontwikkelt. Klinische praktijkrichtijnen zijn een cruciaal onderdeel van evidence-based tandheelkunde. Evidence-based tandheelkunde dient geintegreerd te worden in de opleiding en de dagelijkse praktijk van de tandheelkunde. De oprichting van een landelijk centrum voor de evidence-based ontwikkeling en implementatie van klinische praktijkrichtlijnen, in samenwerking met andere zorgdisciplines, zou hoogste prioriteit moeten krijgen om kwaliteitszorg en waarborging van het tandheelkundig handelen in eigen hand te houden.

Clinical practice guidelines are a very appropriate means of keeping up to date, effectively and efficiently, with knowledge on a specific clinical topic. These are a compilation of clinical expertise retrieved from daily practice, scientific evidence derived from journals and the opinions of patients, which together form the core of the treasury of ideas of evidence-based dentistry. The development of clinical practice guidelines should be carried out according to a strictly defined procedure. In this procedure systematic reviews of literature should be used. The Cochrane Collaboration is an organization that develops reliable systematic reviews. Clinical practice guidelines are an essential part of evidence-based dentistry. The evidence-based approach should be fully integrated in dental education and in daily dental practice. The establishment of a national centre for evidence-based development and implementation of dental clinical practice guidelines, in cooperation with other healthcare professionals, should have the highest priority, in order to maintain the quality of oral healthcare in professional hands.

The aim of this clinical study was to explore the contents of routine oral examinations (ROE), carried out by Dutch general dental practitioners (GDPs), in relation to the oral health status of regularly attending patients. An observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording. Using The Data Station Project of the Dutch Dental Association as the study base, 215 GDPs were recruited, of whom 131 participated in the study. A clinical case-recording form was developed to document clinical behavior. The contents assessed concerned patient characteristics, contents of the ROE visit, diagnoses made, and clinical behavior in response to ROE findings. This study showed substantial variation in clinical behavior related to specific ROE domains, including patient history and record keeping, whereas GDPs acted consistently on other domains, such as clinical examination and recall length assessment. Furthermore, the ROE performance was more strongly associated with GDP characteristics than with patient characteristics. The mean ROE time was 10 min, and recall intervals were most frequently assigned at 6 months, irrespective of the oral condition. This study highlights a need for continuing education to promote risk-based oral screening. Further research is needed to identify factors responsible for the variation in GDP performance, just as research on clinical practice guideline implementation methods is warranted.