BACKGROUND: This study aims to describe the Libyan oral health care system in terms of its structure, function, workforce, funding, reimbursement and target groups.
METHODS: A single descriptive case study approach and multiple sources of data collection were used to provide an in-depth understanding of the Libyan oral health care system. A purposeful sample of the key informants (Managers of oral health centers, dentists of various specialties with experience in the field, dentists, nurses, dental technicians, and officials in the affairs of medical insurance) was recruited. The case and its boundaries were guided by the study\'s aim. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data. Framework analysis, informed by the study objectives, was used to analyze interviews and documents.
RESULTS: The analysis showed that oral health services are integrated into medical services. The provision of dental care is mainly treatment-based, in the private sector. The oral health services in the public sector are mainly emergency care and exodontia. The dental workforce included in the study were mostly dentists (89% General Dental Practitioners (GDPs), 11% specialists), with a marked deficiency in dental technicians and nurses. Around 40% of dentists work in both the private and public sectors. The government provides the funding for the public sector, but the private sector is self-funded. No specific target group(s) nor clear policies were reported. However, the system is built around primary health care as an overarching policy. Dental caries is the most common oral problem among Libyan preschool children affecting around 70% and is the most common cause of tooth loss among adults.
CONCLUSIONS: The oral health care system in Libya is mainly privatized. The public health services are poorly organized and malfunctioning. There is an urgent need to develop policies and plans to improve the oral health care system in Libya.

OBJECTIVE: Implant therapy in partially edentulous patients has become the most adapted and predictable treatment modality. The success rate of implants has been measured in terms of esthetic, biological, and technical factors such as radiographic bone loss, prosthetic complications, and stability. Despite the existence of several indices for the esthetic assessment of implant crowns, a need for functional evaluation of the implant crown with an objective and reproducible score has arisen. The study aims to validate the reproducibility of the functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) and the influence exerted by different dental specialties while evaluating posterior single-unit implant crowns.
METHODS: This was a prospective clinical study.
METHODS: Fifteen patients with cement-retained single-implant crowns in the posterior region of the jaws were included. Eight examiners, two prosthodontists, two periodontists, two oral surgeons, and two orthodontists evaluated 15 photographs of single-unit implant crowns during the 1-year follow-up examination. The examiners assessed the photographs for FIPS, which includes five parameters for objectively evaluating the single-unit implant crowns. Assessments were performed twice at a gap of 4 weeks.
METHODS: Pearson\'s correlation with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for the intra-examiner and the Kruskal-Wallis test for inter-examiner reproducibility.
RESULTS: The mean total FIPS scores for all included examiners were 7.133 for time T1 and 7.074 for time T2, showing a strong Pearson correlation coefficient for intra-examiner reproducibility. No significant difference was analyzed among different specialties with statistically significant values of the Kruskal-Wallis test.
CONCLUSIONS: Intra- and inter-examiner analysis showed very consistent results during the reproducibility assessment of FIPS. The results validated the use of FIPS as a long-term predictive functional evaluation tool for the single-implant crowns in posterior sites irrespective of the effect of different dental specialties. It could be used for risk estimation and prognosis for long-term survival and performance of implant crowns.

OBJECTIVE: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), including large language models (LLMs), has vast potential applications in health care and education. However, it is unclear how proficient LLMs are in interpreting written input and providing accurate answers in dentistry. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of GenAI in answering questions from dental licensing examinations.
METHODS: A total of 1461 multiple-choice questions from question books for the US and the UK dental licensing examinations were input into 2 versions of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0. The passing rates of the US and UK dental examinations were 75.0% and 50.0%, respectively. The performance of the 2 versions of GenAI in individual examinations and dental subjects was analysed and compared.
RESULTS: ChatGPT 3.5 correctly answered 68.3% (n = 509) and 43.3% (n = 296) of questions from the US and UK dental licensing examinations, respectively. The scores for ChatGPT 4.0 were 80.7% (n = 601) and 62.7% (n = 429), respectively. ChatGPT 4.0 passed both written dental licensing examinations, whilst ChatGPT 3.5 failed. ChatGPT 4.0 answered 327 more questions correctly and 102 incorrectly compared to ChatGPT 3.5 when comparing the 2 versions.
CONCLUSIONS: The newer version of GenAI has shown good proficiency in answering multiple-choice questions from dental licensing examinations. Whilst the more recent version of GenAI generally performed better, this observation may not hold true in all scenarios, and further improvements are necessary. The use of GenAI in dentistry will have significant implications for dentist-patient communication and the training of dental professionals.

BACKGROUND: The European Economic Area (EEA) is composed of member states with a multitude of different regions. This study aimed to analyse the ratios of general dentists and dental specialists to the total population and the proportion of dental specialists to general dentists in 24 European countries and to explore specific intranational differences within 2 countries: France and Germany.
METHODS: Available official documents and webpages from the United Kingdom and 23 of the 30 countries comprising the EEA were analysed. Data were expressed as absolute values, ratios of general dentists and dental specialists in the total of population, and percentages of dental specialists/dentists. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to clarify the main ratios that distinguish France from Germany, and cluster analysis was employed to determine similar areas.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found between countries, with Ireland and Austria having the lowest ratio of dentists and Romania and Greece having the highest. The Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark had the lowest ratios of dental specialists to the total population. Lithuania, Sweden, and Germany had the highest number of dental specialists. Orthodontists were the most numerous specialists (5.0% of dentists), followed by oral surgeons (2.7%). In France, differences between departments were pronounced and associated with the presence of dental schools and per capita income. In Germany, only the correlation between per capita income and the density of oral surgeons was significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Diverse ratios of general dentists and dental specialists to the total population and the proportion of dental specialists to general dentists were discovered within the examined countries, and their maximum values were 2.5, 5.7, and 4.1 times the minimum values, respectively. Differences were even found within the same country, as was the case in France and, to a lesser extent, in Germany.

暂无摘要。

Although the European Economic Space usually acts in a united and organized way, several main differences are found regarding the type and number of dental specialties all around this group of member states. The aim of the study is to analyse the inequalities and similarities existing between 21 European countries, highlighting the number and types of recognized dental specialties.
Available official documents and webpages from 20 out of the 30 countries of which the European Economic Space is comprised plus the United Kingdom (UK), were analysed to obtain reliable data referred to dental specialties. Differences were tested with the Lorentz curve and Gini test. Additionally, a Cluster analysis was performed to obtain groups of countries with a similar pattern in the number and type of dental specialties.
Up to a total of 15 different specialties are officially recognized in all the analysed countries. Orthodontics (90%) and Oral Surgery (81%) are the two most frequently recognized specialties. The total global degree of inequality of the analysed countries was 40.2%. Cluster analysis differentiated three different main groups of countries according to the number and type of dental specialties.
The situation of dental specialties in the area of the EES plus the UK exhibits an unequal organization. Cluster analysis showed 3 main clusters of countries with a similar pattern of dental specialties.

To compare observer agreement between endodontists and oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMRs) in the detection and measurement of periapical lesions as depicted in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with 2 voxel sizes.
In total, 256 CBCT images of maxillary molars were evaluated by 2 endodontists and 2 OMRs. Images were obtained at voxel sizes of 0.2 and 0.4 mm. Observers evaluated 64 endodontically and 64 nonendodontically treated teeth for the presence of periapical lesions using a 5-point confidence scale. Weighted κ values were calculated to determine intra- and interobserver agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess intra- and interobserver agreement in width and height measurements of the lesions.
Intraobserver agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect, with κ values higher for the OMRs than for the endodontists. Interobserver agreement between endodontists ranged from fair to moderate at the 0.2mm voxel size and was slight at 0.4 mm. Agreement between OMRs was almost perfect at 0.2 mm and ranged from substantial to almost perfect at 0.4 mm. ICC was excellent for all observers in all conditions.
Intra- and interobserver reliability was affected by voxel size and specialty. Correlation for measurements exhibited no variation.

BACKGROUND: Empathy is an attribute that has an important role in the dentist-patient therapeutic relationship, clinical care and adherence to treatment, amongst other benefits. The aim of this research was to determine empathy in dentists in the process of specialisation.
METHODS: Through an observational and cross-sectional study, all postgraduate students of Dentistry Faculty of Universidad Andrés Bello (Chile) were analysed (N = 195). The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy Scale was applied.
RESULTS: The results show an adequate reliability of the empathy measure (α = 0.819, ω = 0.928). A three-factor structure is evidenced by confirmatory factor analysis (χ2 /df = 1.445, GFI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.047) and adequate factor invariance between men and women. Women showed greater empathy on the global scale and in the perspective adoption dimension, with no gender differences found in the dimension Compassionate care and putting oneself in the other\'s shoes (POOS). The median empathy reaches 120 points. Below, are placed, the specialty of oral rehabilitation (Med = 114.5), surgery (Med = 117) and periodontics (Med. = 117.5). With superior scores, temporomandibular disorder (Med. = 121), endodontics (Med. = 121), Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Med. = 122), Implantology (Med. = 125) and Pediatric dentistry (Med. = 127.5) are located.
CONCLUSIONS: Women were more empathetic than men. In general, empathy levels are relatively high, but the common feature in which all students examined in different specialties have low levels in dimension POOS.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。