Paula Jane Waterhouse

Objectives: This qualitative study explored dental student participants' understanding of racism, their experiences, and responses to racism in dental school, and the impacts of their experiences.Methods: An interpretative phenomenological analysis design recruited students from the undergraduate dental degree and the BSc in Oral Health Science course at a UK dental school in December 2020. Two students and a qualitative researcher facilitated the online focus groups. A topic guide including scenario questions guided the discussions that lasted an average of 2 h. The recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty‐five participants took part in five focus groups. Several themes emerged related to participants' experiences and reactions. They described a spectrum of racist encounters ranging from more subtle forms, such as stereotyping and microaggression to racial mocking. They were concerned about professionalism, not knowing how and when to respond to patients' racist behavior. They described gender discrimination and intersectional biases but felt compelled to put patients' interests first. They were unsure about how to respond to stereotyping or racism from staff because of perceived imbalances in the staff‐patient‐student triad relationship. They expressed fears of gaslighting and despondency. They also felt that the COVID‐19 pandemic and anonymity from virtual learning environments enabled racist behavior.Conclusion: This study revealed a complex triad relationship between participants, staff and patients, and experience of intersectionality and three levels of racism: interpersonal, structural, and institutional. It highlighted the need for further research to develop actions including structural policies and equality and diversity training.

IntroductionDiversity is known to be important but diversity of staff working in dental schools in the UK and Ireland is low in comparison with the dental profession and the overall population. AimsTo provide a detailed snapshot of the diversity of dental academic staff in 2021 including staff working in academic and clinical roles.MethodsAn online survey was circulated to dental schools by Dental Schools Council. Questions included dates of graduation and key career milestones, demographics and indicators of esteem. Free text questions were also included.ResultsThere was a high degree of variability in dental academic careers which made direct comparisons difficult. Neither gender nor race appeared to be associated with a faster career progression. Females and those of racialised minority were less represented at the most senior grades. For those who had completed specialty training, racialised minority staff were far less likely to be working at consultant grade than their White equivalents.ConclusionThere are differences in career progression between staff in dental schools. The high amount of individual variability makes these difficult to quantify except at the most senior positions. Qualitative information is needed to contextualise the results and provide additional information.

Introduction Newcastle University School of Dental Sciences (NUSDS) and Indiana University School of Dentistry in the United States of America (IUSD) are like-minded institutions committed to civic engagement. Over the last 15 years, both universities have built civic engagement into the dental curricula, however each institution operates within significantly different healthcare systems. Aim Co-development of unique collaborative dental education; the first UK/US educational exchange programme engaged with the dental student community. Design A dental educational exchange was developed enabling NUSDS and IUSD students to learn alongside each other within dental and community settings in both countries. Students participate in a unique face-to-face collaborative and interdisciplinary education programme within respective dental schools and by a series of video conferences scheduled before on-site visits. They gain mutual awareness of delivery, access to care and possible barriers facing patients relating to the oral healthcare systems in England, the state of Indiana and the USA. Logistical considerations were significant, aided by scoping visits to the respective partner school and video conferencing. Planning encompassed timetable restrictions, scheduling student video conferences, students' clinical access/observerships, occupational health clearances, overall educational content, student/staff evaluation and potential areas for education research. Conclusions Currently in its fourth year, this is a unique example of a collaborative educational exchange between the UK and USA.

Introduction In order to achieve the educational standards of the General Dental Council, providers of UK dental education programmes are required to demonstrate that feedback from patients is collected and used to inform programme development. Aims To determine areas of undergraduate dental training programmes that patients feel able to comment upon, allowing development of a patient feedback questionnaire. Methods Patients receiving treatment from undergraduate students were recruited to focus groups (n = 5, n = 6) where their experience of receiving student care was explored. Audio transcriptions were analysed for emergent themes. These themes informed the design of a questionnaire which was presented to a further patient focus group (n = 4) for content and face validity testing. Staff (n = 4) and student (n = 8) focus groups discussed its delivery. Results Patients were able to comment upon treatment quality, safety, the student-teacher interaction, and appointment times. An 18-question questionnaire was developed to include free text comments and answers on a visual analogue scale. It was modified following focus groups with patients, staff, and students. Conclusion Patients undergoing student treatment identified aspects of the clinical teaching programme that could be included in a feedback questionnaire. Following a pilot, the questionnaire will form part of the teaching quality assurance process.

This study aimed to test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in surface characteristics of eroded and abraded human, ovine and bovine enamel. Twenty enamel slabs were prepared from bovine, human and ovine incisor crowns, and randomly assigned to one of 4 treatments: 30 second/4 minute immersion at 1%/6% w/v citric acid. Post-erosion, an oscillatory brush was used for 20 seconds. Roughness parameters, height change and scanning electron microscopy were measured at each stage. Whilst the eroded surface became generally less rough after the abrasive challenge, there were significant tissue differences. Abraded microhardness was significantly increased compared to eroded values (P⟨0.001), Surface loss was also significantly different between tissue types (P⟨0.001). Bovine enamel showed similar trends to human enamel but was consistently harder and more resistant to surface change. Ovine enamel displayed little correlation with human enamel.Scanning electron microscopy images showed differences for each tissue that were consistent with the quantitative data. The null hypothesis was rejected; neither bovine nor ovine enamel can be reliably used interchangeably with human enamel for erosion/abrasion studies.

Structured Objective: To compare the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis to orthognathic surgery for the treatment of maxillary hypoplasia in individuals with cleft lip and palate.Method: A systematic review of prospective randomized, quasi‐randomized or controlled clinical trials. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, CENTRAL, trial registers and grey literature were searched. Hand searching of five relevant journals was completed. Two reviewers independently completed inclusion assessment. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer.Results: Five publications all reporting different outcomes of a single randomized controlled trial are included within the review. The quality of the evidence was low with a high risk of bias. Both surgical interventions produce significant soft tissue improvement. Horizontal relapse of the maxilla was statistically significantly greater following orthognathic surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in speech and velo‐pharyngeal function between the interventions. Maxillary distraction initially lowered social self‐esteem, but this improved with time resulting in higher satisfaction with life in the long term.Conclusions: The low quality of evidence included within the review means there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether there is a difference in effectiveness between maxillary distraction and osteotomy for the treatment of cleft‐related maxillary hypoplasia. There is a need for further high‐quality randomized controlled trials to allow conclusive recommendations to be made.