Objectives: Dentists and dental hygienists undergo high levels of stress due to various factors and the burnout of health-care personnel is very important in the context of personal and social problems. Therefore, empirical research reflecting the social, cultural, and special circumstances of the medical environment is necessary. Here, we explore the causes and outcomes of burnout in dentists and dental hygienists and present ways to prevent burnout. Methods: A cross-sectional research design was used to measure burnout of 141 dentists and 61 dental hygienists. A structured questionnaire containing the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was administered from May to June, 2018. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, descriptive statistics, t-test, Mann-Whitney test, Kruskall-Wallis test, and multiple regression analysis. Results: Each participant's MBI was measured in three aspects (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment). The MBI scores of dentists with regards to their emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment were 24.8%, 34%, and 48.2%, respectively. Alternatively the scores of dental hygienists were 45.9%, 44.3% and 52.5%, respectively, for the same parameters. While the factors affecting the burnout of dentists and dental hygienists were different, it had a negative impact on the professional performance of both. Conclusions: According to the results of this study, Korean dentists and dental hygienists experience high levels of work-related burnouts. This can have adverse impacts on their personal health and that of their patients. Therefore, stress management is necessary in dentists and dental hygienists.

Objectives: In the last decade awareness has been raised due to unsafe and dangerous devices entering the European market, putting patient safety at stake. Consequently, evidence requirements may not be enough to ensure a high-quality and safe provision of medical devices in Europe.This research aims at exploring the authorization and reimbursement processes and the associated evidence requirements comparing four high-impact regions Europe, United States, Australia and Canada. MethOds: First, we performed a literature search about the authorization and reimbursement in the four high-impact regions. Second, seven high-risk medical devices were chosen as examples and current authorization and reimbursement status were assessed. Information was extracted from publicly available summaries, from PubMed, and from the clinical trial database (clincialtrial.gov), supplemented by the worldwideweb. Results: The evidence required for the authorization and reimbursement processes clearly differs in the four high-impact regions. All seven devices have been authorized in Europe, three in Australia, one in the United States, and one in Canada. Currently none of the seven devices is recommended for reimbursement in the four high-impact regions. cOnclusiOns: Looking at the difference in evidence requirements, more harmonization, transparency and specific regulations are needed worldwide for the authorization and reimbursement of high-risk medical devices to ensure a high-quality and safe provision.