IADR Abstract Archives
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Approaches used by German Dentists
Objectives: We intended to analyse whether dentists use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) remedies in their clinical routine, and how effective these are rated by users and non-users.
Methods: Cross-sectional survey among 250 German dentists (55% male, 45% female; mean age 49±11 years) using a standardized questionnaire.
Results: Among 32 predefined CAM modalities, dentists prominently used plant extracts from Arnica montana (64%), Chamomile (64%), Clove (63%), Salvia officinalis (54%), but also relaxation therapies (62%), homeopathy (57%), osteopathic medicine (50%), and dietetics (50%).
Effectiveness of specific treatments was rated significantly higher (p<.0001) by CAM users than non-users. However, also non-users rate the effectiveness of some treatments as high (scores > 2; range 0 to 3), i.e., ear acupuncture and Clove. For ear acupuncture, effectiveness did not significantly differ between both groups.
Asked for the best fields to be clinically used, Phytotherapy was seen useful to treat oral mucosal affections (74%), periodontal affections (66%), burning mouth symptoms (54%), post-surgical complaints (63%), after radio or chemotherapies (62%). Mind-body approaches were seen useful for TMJ complaints (63%) and in cases of dental treatment anxieties (61%), while Acupuncture was seen as useful to treat pain (64%), TMJ complaints (63%), and treatment anxieties (50%).
Conclusions: CAM treatments are popular among German dentists and are requested by their patients. There is a clear discrepancy between evidence derived from scientific literature and the current clinical usage. For some CAM approaches one may find clinical studies and meta-analyses, for others only case reports. Even though there is some scientific evidence for a few therapies (i.e., Tea Tree oil and Clove), for most approaches the evidence is unclear. Our findings underline that there is a need for more good quality studies, and to consider putative benefits and limitations of CAM approaches in medical education.
Methods: Cross-sectional survey among 250 German dentists (55% male, 45% female; mean age 49±11 years) using a standardized questionnaire.
Results: Among 32 predefined CAM modalities, dentists prominently used plant extracts from Arnica montana (64%), Chamomile (64%), Clove (63%), Salvia officinalis (54%), but also relaxation therapies (62%), homeopathy (57%), osteopathic medicine (50%), and dietetics (50%).
Effectiveness of specific treatments was rated significantly higher (p<.0001) by CAM users than non-users. However, also non-users rate the effectiveness of some treatments as high (scores > 2; range 0 to 3), i.e., ear acupuncture and Clove. For ear acupuncture, effectiveness did not significantly differ between both groups.
Asked for the best fields to be clinically used, Phytotherapy was seen useful to treat oral mucosal affections (74%), periodontal affections (66%), burning mouth symptoms (54%), post-surgical complaints (63%), after radio or chemotherapies (62%). Mind-body approaches were seen useful for TMJ complaints (63%) and in cases of dental treatment anxieties (61%), while Acupuncture was seen as useful to treat pain (64%), TMJ complaints (63%), and treatment anxieties (50%).
Conclusions: CAM treatments are popular among German dentists and are requested by their patients. There is a clear discrepancy between evidence derived from scientific literature and the current clinical usage. For some CAM approaches one may find clinical studies and meta-analyses, for others only case reports. Even though there is some scientific evidence for a few therapies (i.e., Tea Tree oil and Clove), for most approaches the evidence is unclear. Our findings underline that there is a need for more good quality studies, and to consider putative benefits and limitations of CAM approaches in medical education.