K A Eaton1, H N Newman, E Widström. 1. Eastman Dental Institute for Oral Health Care Sciences, University College London, London. K.Eaton@eastman.ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to establish how many dental hygienists were licensed to practice in Canada, Japan, USA and the 18 member states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and to compare these with the populations and numbers of dentists practising in the countries concerned. METHOD: Data for the overall populations, numbers of 'active' dentists, of dental hygienists and of employed dental hygienists in the member states of the EEA in 1998 were taken from the responses to a Council of European Chief Dental Officers survey carried out in 2000/2001. Data for these variables for Canada, Japan and the USA in 1998 were accessed from published reports. The ratios of population: active dentist; population: dental hygienist; and active dentist: dental hygienist were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The overall populations and total number of active dentists in the 18 EEA member states and Canada plus Japan plus the USA were broadly similar in 1998 (EEA overall population 381 million with 245169 active dentists: Canada/Japan/USA overall population 421 million with 253825 active dentists). However, there were only 13295 dental hygienists in the EEA as opposed to a total of 215435 in Canada, Japan and the USA. In terms of population:dental hygienist and active dentist: dental hygienist ratios the UK was found to have proportionally far fewer dental hygienists than Canada, Japan, USA or the four Nordic members of the EEA. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed that relative to overall populations and numbers of dentists, there are far fewer dental hygienists in the EEA than in Canada, Japan and the USA and that scope for the UK to import dental hygienists from other EEA member states is probably very limited.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to establish how many dental hygienists were licensed to practice in Canada, Japan, USA and the 18 member states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and to compare these with the populations and numbers of dentists practising in the countries concerned. METHOD: Data for the overall populations, numbers of 'active' dentists, of dental hygienists and of employed dental hygienists in the member states of the EEA in 1998 were taken from the responses to a Council of European Chief Dental Officers survey carried out in 2000/2001. Data for these variables for Canada, Japan and the USA in 1998 were accessed from published reports. The ratios of population: active dentist; population: dental hygienist; and active dentist: dental hygienist were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The overall populations and total number of active dentists in the 18 EEA member states and Canada plus Japan plus the USA were broadly similar in 1998 (EEA overall population 381 million with 245169 active dentists: Canada/Japan/USA overall population 421 million with 253825 active dentists). However, there were only 13295 dental hygienists in the EEA as opposed to a total of 215435 in Canada, Japan and the USA. In terms of population:dental hygienist and active dentist: dental hygienist ratios the UK was found to have proportionally far fewer dental hygienists than Canada, Japan, USA or the four Nordic members of the EEA. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed that relative to overall populations and numbers of dentists, there are far fewer dental hygienists in the EEA than in Canada, Japan and the USA and that scope for the UK to import dental hygienists from other EEA member states is probably very limited.