No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Patient records were retrospectively reviewed to investigate the incidence of hypertensive patients seen at a U.S. dental school. This research was conducted to create an awareness of the current problems in diagnosing and treating hypertensive patients in the dental environment. Nine hundred and seventy-six records of patients seen between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000 were reviewed. Five hundred records that met specific study criteria related to health history, medications used, recorded blood pressure, and other criteria were selected for the study. Factors examined included demographic data consisting of age, sex, and ethnicity; history of hypertension; Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure classification; control of hypertension; and medications used. The data demonstrated that 32 percent of the patients were hypertensive, 49 percent of whom were unaware of their high blood pressure prior to their dental visit. Nearly 9 percent of the hypertensive patients with elevated blood pressure had to be immediately sent for medical consult before they could receive dental treatment. The average blood pressure of the hypertensive patients was systolic 145.6 and diastolic 87.9 with a range of 110 to 240 systolic, 60 to 135 diastolic. Of the diagnosed patients, 41.9 percent were taking antihypertensive medication for their condition, and 13 percent were taking two or more medications. Nearly one third of a sample of 500 dental school clinic patients had high blood pressure in this retrospective study. This study demonstrates that it is crucial that dental providers take blood pressure readings for screening, monitoring of hypertensive patients, and appropriate dental care.Ms. Kellogg is a dental student and Dr. Gobetti is Professor and

Bite mark evidence, which is most often associated with violent crimes, is legally accepted and admissible in a court of law. However, current legal attacks are underway against the admission of such evidence. Indeed, over the last 20 years, bite mark forensics have sustained a multitude of legal challenges, some concerning the constitutional rights of the accused and others the scientific acceptance of such an approach. Bite marks are considered hard evidence and are highly persuasive to juries who weigh the evidence.