Teeth are for chewing: a critical review of the conceptualisation and ethics of a controversial intraoral weight-loss device

[Dental occlusal disruptor as a strategy to moderate caloric intake: two case report]

Background

Obesity is a global public health challenge, closely related with the progression of other diseases. In recent years, odontology has intervened against obesity through the implementation of intraoral devices that contribute with weight control treatments.

Objective

To study the use of a dental occlusal disruptor as a strategy to moderate caloric intake.

Material and methods

Pilot study which included 2 patients. It was used a dental occlusal disruptor that has an impact on the smaller amount of food at each bite. Patients attended five appointments in which a stomatological evaluation was carried out and anthropometric measurements were taken. All adverse effects were reported in each patient's clinical history.

Results

Patients presented weight and body fat loss, increased muscle mass and decreased both body mass index and waist and hip measurements.

Conclusions

The use of the disruptor does not alter the stomatological assessment, it promotes masticatory regulation and the decrease in body weight. It is necessary to analyze its use in a larger number of patients.

Virtual consultations for oral surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Following Covid-19, many departments have incorporated teledentistry into practice. As new consultation methods are introduced, it's imperative that patients have as similar an experience with virtual consultations to ensure informed decision-making. This project evaluated patients' perceptions of video consultations and determined if patients seen virtually received the same standard of information by auditing compliance with sending patient information leaflets (PILs) following video consultation.

METHOD

The department's PILs were used to create an inclusion list for patients requiring a PIL. A retrospective audit assessed the notes of 100 video consultations for records of if PILs were sent and by what method. The department's PILs were digitalised and a clinical mailbox introduced enabling clinicians to email patients a PIL hyperlink. The audit was repeated for 88 video consultations. Patient and staff feedback was gathered via online surveys.

RESULTS

Initially, 51% of cases met the criteria requiring a PIL and 16% of patients were sent PILs. Following mailbox introduction, 53% of cases met the criteria and 94% were sent PILs, 100% via email. Patient and staff feedback was positive regarding video consultations and digital PILS. Technical difficulties were reported in 44% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients perceive virtual consultations to be a positive change and the introduction of a mailbox enhances video consultations in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Patient information can be standardised, via digital PILs, regardless of consultation type. As departments implement post-pandemic changes, utilisation of a mailbox can provide multiple improvements to care.