• Jennifer A Pieren, Cindy C Gadbury-Amyot, Diane P Kandray, Christopher J Van Ness, and Tanya Villalpando Mitchell.
• J Dent Hyg. 2013 Jun 1; 87 (3): 158-68.

PurposeIn 2004, the attitudes toward and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by Ohio dental professionals were examined. While willing to use an AED, most did not have access to one. With new AED-related legislation and increased awareness of the benefits of AEDs since the initial study in 2004, the purpose of this study was to document the prevalence of and attitudes toward AED usage in the dental setting 7 years following the initial study.MethodsA 2 page survey instrument was mailed to a random sample of 1,629 dentists and 1,801 dental hygienists in Ohio.ResultsA 24% overall response rate was achieved (36% dentists and 64% hygienists). Data were analyzed using SPSS. Results indicate 16% of respondents experienced a cardiac emergency in their practice that required contacting emergency personnel. AEDs are available in 48% of dental practices. Comparing the 2004 and 2011 data, statistically significant differences were found between the responses of dentists and dental hygienists.ConclusionWhile hygienists reported more positive attitudes toward AEDs than dentists, the majority of all respondents feel AEDs should be mandated in the dental setting. These findings suggest an increase in cardiac emergencies in Ohio dental settings, an increase in the prevalence of AEDs in Ohio dental settings and that the perceptions of dental professionals are changing in favor of the use of AEDs in the dental setting since the 2004 study.

25 keywords...

hide…