Data from three countries has supported the psychometric properties of this modified and brief dental anxiety scale.

A convenience sample of patients (n = 271) from community health centres and private clinics in different parts of Finland were recruited for this study through their dental clinic. Equal numbers of regular and irregular clients were invited to participate. Before the treatment procedure, each patient filled out a questionnaire with forty Likertian statements dealing with their expectations of an ideal dentist, and nine about their own background, i.e., age, sex, regularity of dental visits. basic and professional education, and occupation. After the treatment subjects described their treating dentists' behaviour using similar statements. In the analyses two approaches were applied. First, factor analyses with orthogonal varimax rotation were conducted with the data about the ideal and actual dentist. For the ideal dentist, five factors were extracted: 1) mutual communication, 2) fair support, 3) personal appearance, 4) preferred type of practice, and 5) blaming; and for the actual dentist 5 factors were extracted: 1) mutual communication, 2) pain control, 3) fair support, 4) personal appearance, and 5) preferred type of practice. The factor structures were found to be similar when they were compared with transformation analysis. This justified the second analysis where the differences between the ideal and the actual factor scores were compared. The expectations of the patients were met on all the other dentist characteristics except mutual communication and fair support. There were not many differences between subgroups of patients. In further studies, other background variables, such as previous experiences of the patients, should be considered in order to obtain a more complete explanation of the variation in satisfaction. More attention should be paid to the communication skills of the dentists.

The ideal behavior of dentists and patients has seldom been studied with the aim of determining whether it is similar to the actual behavior of the two groups. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare whether the ideal behavior of dentists and patients differed from their actual behavior. Thirty-three volunteering dentists and 271 of their patients from the public and private sectors in different parts of Finland participated in the study. The dentists first filled out a questionnaire with 5-scale Likert-type statements about the ideal patient and questions concerning their own background variables. In connection with normal dental practice their dental nurses selected 10 patients, who before treatment filled out a questionnaire containing statements about the desired behavior of an ideal dentist and their own background variables. Immediately after the treatment, both dentists and patients filled out another questionnaire containing similar statements, which this time indicated whether the dentist/patient actually behaved according to the ideal. Differences between each individual and the independent ideal and actual scores were compared by cross-tabulation and percentage agreement. With regard to the ideal behavior that was directly related to the treatment procedure, the expectations of both dentists and patients were usually met. In general, the patients did not disrupt the procedures and the dentists were able to concentrate on the treatment. The discrepancies most often found between the ideal and the actual behavior concerned the level of communication. The patients often would like to have been talked to more and wanted to be encouraged. The dentists were not sure whether their patients were interested in or motivated about the treatment or whether they followed the home care instructions. In general, there evidently is a clear gap in communication between dentists and patients, which may lead to frustration on both sides. It is thus suggested that when dentists are trained, more emphasis be placed on communication skills.

The aims of the study were to determine what according to lay people and dentists in the Kuopio and North Karelia provinces of Finland characterizes the ideal dentist and the ideal patient and to develop a proper questionnaire for further studies in dentist-patient relationship. A questionnaire containing 124, five-class Likert scale statements and questions about background variables was sent in November 1988 to a representative sample of lay people and to all dentists in these regions. To extract areas of preferences for both dentists and patients, and to select questions for further studies on dentist-patient relationship, factor analysis was applied to the data. Similarities and differences in the opinions of dentists and patients were also evaluated by single statements. According to factor analyses, the perceptions of dentists and patients were in general similar, communicativeness and informativeness being the most important traits of dentists and activeness, compliance and motivation being the most important traits of patients. However, differences were also found which should be taken into consideration when teaching dentists about the dentist-patient relationship. Based on the current results we also propose a compact questionnaire to be used in further studies.

– The Benifit of seminnual application of the sodium fluoride varnish Duraphat(R) and the silane fluoride varnish Fluor Protector(R) was studied in 11–13‐year‐old children with high caries activity and lifelong exposure to fluoridated drinking water (1–1.2 parts/106). Annual clinical and radiographic examinations were made of 62 children in the Duraphat group and 70 children in the Fluor Protector group. Fluoride varnish was applied semiannually using the half‐moth technique. After 3 years, for the Duraphat group mean total DMES increments on the control side were 6.2 and on the test side 4.3 (P<0.001); for the Fluor Protector group the DMES increments were 4.9 and 4.4, respectively (NS). The caries reductions were 30% and 11%. Since ther were no differences between initial mean DMES scores of the groups, it is possible that the lower increment in the Fluor Protector control side compatred to the Duraphat control side was due to fluoride ions from Fluor Protector crossing the midline and providing protection on the control side as well. Therefore, we conclude that Duraphat proved effective, but definite conslusion of the effect of Fluor Protector cannot be made. Children with the highest DMES increment on the control side (duraphat) gained most from the applications.