Six Month Recall, Comparative Study Of Two Clinical Environments

Objective:The six monthly dental examinations have become synonymous, by both the dental profession and public, with good dental health. Whilst the origins for such a prescription are ambiguous, its effectiveness at providing the public with a reminder for recalls and the profession with a method of disease monitoring is of little doubt. However, in a period under the vigilant eye from the public and media, not to mention fellow peers, one must address the validity of the practice of these established recall patterns. The present study aimed to assess the provision and interval of recall appointments in two clinical environments, one being the Transitional Training Unit (TTU) at the University of Sheffield and the second two general practices (GP).

Method: Retrospective analysis of 120 randomly selected patient records for patients seen in a one month period was carried out.

Result: The results found that, in General Practice the majority of patients 63% (GP) had a recall interval of 6 months or less. The opposite was true in the University based environment 27% (TTU). Fewer patients on annual recall 55% (TTU), 58% (GP) showed an increase in DMF than those attending after six months 64.3% (TTU), 69% (GP) in both environments. The proportion of patients with presenting complaints was greater at 12 month recall. BPE increases were more pronounced with 6 month recall 57.2% (TTU), 28.6% (GP), than at twelve months 49.7% (TTU), 28.3% (GP).

Conclusion: The results elucidated no clear benefit or harm from 6 month recall, it could however be deemed to constitute over- prescription in a proportion of patients with a resultant waste in productivity.