Table of Contents
International Scholarly Research Notices
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 794769, 7 pages
Research Article

Outcome-Based Quality Control by a Dental Reference Profile of a Population-Based Study (SHIP-0)

1Center of Oral Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Gerodontology and Biomaterials, Rotgerberstraße 8, 17475 Greifswald, Germany
2Center of Oral Health, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontology and Periodontology, Unit of Periodontology, University Medicine Greifswald, Rotgerberstraße 8, 17475 Greifswald, Germany
3Institute of Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Ellernholzstraße 1-2, 17487 Greifswald, Germany

Received 15 March 2015; Revised 9 June 2015; Accepted 14 June 2015

Academic Editor: Lia Rimondini

Copyright © 2015 Stefanie Samietz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Objectives. The aim was to develop an instrument for quality control in dental practices. We compared the number of teeth of subjects of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP-0) with those from patients of dental practices. Methods. Patients from seven dental practices were randomly sampled by age strata and gender for a period of two years. Dental status derived from patient files was transformed into practice profiles using age-specific number of teeth as a parameter. Practice profiles were compared with a nomogram, which was based on the age-specific number of teeth of 3,990 SHIP-0 participants regularly visiting the dentist. Further, negative binomial regression models were evaluated to model associations between the number of teeth with age and dental practices, including interactions. Results. The practice profiles ranged between the 45th and 95th quantile curves of the reference population SHIP-0. The rate ratios (RR) for the number of missing teeth ranged from 0.37 to 0.67 between the different dental practices, indicating lower risk for higher numbers of missing teeth in comparison to SHIP-0. Conclusions. This study showed considerable differences between dental practices and the reference population of SHIP-0 regarding the pattern of tooth loss and confirms the value of nomograms to compare age-specific numbers of teeth between patients of dental practices and a population-based-study as a tool for quality control. For further analyses, the socioeconomic status of patients and relevant risk factors will be used to adjust for structural differences in order to improve the validity of the comparisons.