Search

Dental implants have become an increasingly popular treatment choice for replacing missing teeth. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and sociodemographic distribution of dental implant use in the United States. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed data from 7 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2016. We estimated dental implant prevalence among adults missing any teeth for each survey period overall as stratified by sociodemographic characteristics. We calculated absolute and relative differences from 1999-2000 to 2015-2016 and fit logistic regression models to estimate changes over time. We also used multivariable logistic regression to estimate independent associations of sociodemographic covariates with the presence of any implant. We projected the proportion of patients treated with dental implants into the year 2026 under varying assumptions of how the temporal trend would continue. There has been a large increase in the prevalence of dental implants, from 0.7% in 1999 to 2000 to 5.7% in 2015 to 2016. The largest absolute increase in prevalence (12.9%) was among individuals 65 to 74 y old, whereas the largest relative increase was ~1,000% among those 55 to 64 y old. There was an average covariate-adjusted increase in dental implant prevalence of 14% per year (95% CI, 11% to 18%). Having private insurance (vs. none or public insurance) or more than a high school education (vs. high school or less) was each associated with a 2-fold increase in prevalence, with an almost 13-fold (95% CI, 8 to21) increase for older adults. Dental implant prevalence projected to 2026 ranged from 5.7% in the most conservative scenario to 23% in the least. This study demonstrates that dental implant prevalence among US adults with missing teeth has substantially increased since 1999. Yet access overall is still very low, and prevalence was consistently higher among more advantaged groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Credentialing and assigning clinical privileges are well-established practices in institutions that need to verify a clinician's ability to provide direct patient care services. The credentialing process verifies a provider's credentials to practice his or her profession, while privileging authorizes the individual to perform enumerated procedures within a specific scope of practice. All clinical faculty members at Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) practice in the Faculty Group Practice (FGP). Because of the number of practitioners in the FGP, the organization instituted a more formal process of credentialing that verifies that practitioners are not only licensed to practice, but also are competent to provide direct patient care. In contrast to other dental schools that have established similar protocols, HSDM approached the process not from the academic side, but rather from the clinical practice side, explicitly taking into account whether the FGP could accommodate another practitioner when an academic department wished to appoint a new faculty member. In doing so, we had to be careful to reconcile our educational and research needs with those of the FGP. In this article, we describe how, within this framework, we established a credentialing and privileging program in which all full- and part-time faculty members, as well as advanced graduate students, were included.

Objective: This study explored the association between Medicare cost-sharing requirements and the probability of use of various mental health outpatient services among Medicare enrollees with schizophrenia., Methods: Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of use of each of seven types of services over six months. Patients were recruited from public and private mental health treatment provider organizations in six states. The analyses included 1,088 Medicare enrollees, of whom approximately 55 percent were also enrolled in Medicaid., Results: Medicare-only patients (with greater cost-sharing) were 25 to 45 percent less likely to have used rehabilitation services, individual therapy with nonpsychiatrist mental health providers, and case management. No association was found between Medicaid enrollment and probability of service use for medical clinic visits, group therapy, individual contact with a psychiatrist, or receipt of second-generation antipsychotics., Conclusions: Among Medicare enrollees with schizophrenia, gaps in Medicare coverage may be more problematic for rehabilitation, case management, and contact with nonpsychiatrist providers. Local public and private subsidies for mental health treatment may compensate for some of the gaps in coverage. However, such subsidies are not universally or uniformly provided.