Comparison of Dental Emergencies Among U.S. Military and Civilian Personnel During Combat Operations in 2007-2009.

INTRODUCTION: Information from published studies describing dental treatment of nonmilitary personnel in a military theater of operations is sparse. The primary objective of this study is to determine the number of dental emergencies (DEs) and the types of dental treatment rendered on non-U.S. military (civilian) personnel treated by Navy dentists in 2007-2008 in Iraq and 2009 in Afghanistan. The second objective is to compare the type of DE treatment procedures provided to civilian personnel to the type of DE treatment procedures performed on U.S. military personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Navy Dental Officers documented the diagnoses of unscheduled DEs. All treatment provided was described at the time of treatment using the Current Dental Terminology codes of the American Dental Association. Current Dental Terminology Code A0145 (2007 and earlier) and A0199 (2008 onward) in the patient encounter indicated a DE. This study is limited to DE occurring in (1) patient categories: U.S. civilian employees, other beneficiaries of the U.S. Government, foreign national civilian/dependents, and civilian, no government connection and (2) U.S. military service members. Chi-square analysis was performed to compare the proportion of dental treatment category procedures on civilian patients compared to those on U.S. military patients.

RESULTS: During the reporting period, 308 patients were treated for DE in Afghanistan. Civilians treated accounted for 18.5% (n = 57) of all DEs. Nearly 93.0% of civilians who were treated were U.S. (DoD) civilian employees. Of the 57 civilian patients treated for DE, 61.4% of patients (n = 35) received oral surgery. There were 251 U.S. military patient encounters (81.5% of all DEs). Restorative dentistry was the most common dental procedure for military personnel DE. When comparing civilian and military patients, civilian patients are statistically more likely than military patients to receive oral surgery treatment for DE (P < .00001). In Iraq, 3,198 patients were treated for DE during the reporting period. Civilians treated accounted for 18.8% (n = 601) of all DEs. About 56.9% (n = 342) of civilians who were treated were U.S. contract employees. Of the 601 civilian patients treated for DE, 37.1% (n = 223) received oral surgery. There were 2,597 U.S. military patient DE encounters, and restorative dentistry was the most common dental procedure. When comparing civilian and U.S. military patients in Iraq, civilians are statistically less likely to have their DE treated by restorative dentistry (P < .00001) and are more likely have it treated by oral surgery/extractions (P < .00001). It is significantly more likely for civilians to have multiple categories of DE that must be treated (P< .00001).

CONCLUSIONS: The primary group of civilians treated for DE in Afghanistan was U.S. civilian employees. The primary group of civilians treated for DE in Iraq were contract employees of the U.S. Government. The primary dental treatment of civilian beneficiaries in both the theaters of operation was oral surgery. This brings into question what dental fitness standards are there for primarily U.S. civilian and contract employees.