Nurcan Deniz1, Ekim Onur Orhan2,3. 1. Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 26040, Eskişehir, Turkey. nurcanatikdeniz@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 26040, Eskişehir, Turkey. 3. Translational Medicine Research and Clinical Center, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, 26040, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are (i) to propose specific selection criteria related to NiTi instruments for dental practitioners and (ii) to objectively assess the NiTi instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The steps of the methodology are as follows: Step 1: "Delphi method" was employed to reach a consensus on criteria defined according to the literature review and a group of panelists. Step 2: "Smart pairwise comparisons" were employed to rank the proposed criteria. Step 3: "Borda voting" was employed to determine the weights of the proposed criteria. Step 4: To determine assessment scores, "Simple Additive Weighting" was employed. Step 5: Reliability and validity checks were made by "simulation." RESULTS: Specific criteria classified under dimensions were proposed and weighted for the NiTi instrument assessment. In this context, an assessment model was proposed and validated. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed assessment model for NiTi instruments could aid to make the decision-making process as systematic, transparent, and reproducible as possible not only for dental practitioners but also for healthcare professionals. Also, this proposed model can represent a reference framework for further MCDM studies which can rank or classify materials in medical science. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The model proposed in this study can be used to aid decision-making in clinical practice by means assessing the NiTi instrumentation system alternatives for practitioners.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are (i) to propose specific selection criteria related to NiTi instruments for dental practitioners and (ii) to objectively assess the NiTi instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The steps of the methodology are as follows: Step 1: "Delphi method" was employed to reach a consensus on criteria defined according to the literature review and a group of panelists. Step 2: "Smart pairwise comparisons" were employed to rank the proposed criteria. Step 3: "Borda voting" was employed to determine the weights of the proposed criteria. Step 4: To determine assessment scores, "Simple Additive Weighting" was employed. Step 5: Reliability and validity checks were made by "simulation." RESULTS: Specific criteria classified under dimensions were proposed and weighted for the NiTi instrument assessment. In this context, an assessment model was proposed and validated. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed assessment model for NiTi instruments could aid to make the decision-making process as systematic, transparent, and reproducible as possible not only for dental practitioners but also for healthcare professionals. Also, this proposed model can represent a reference framework for further MCDM studies which can rank or classify materials in medical science. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The model proposed in this study can be used to aid decision-making in clinical practice by means assessing the NiTi instrumentation system alternatives for practitioners.