Sebastiana Arroyo-Bote1, Susane Herrero-Tarilonte2, Joan Mas-Ramis2, Catalina Bennasar-Verger2. 1. Coordinating teacher. Conservative Dentistry. ADEMA University School. University of the Balearic Islands. Spain. Associate professor Barcelona University. IDIBELL research. 2. Associate professor Conservative Dentistry. ADEMA University School. University of the Balearic Islands. Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of caries, the stage of the disease and the indication of treatment are among the most controversial issues in dentistry. Studies comparing the diagnosis and treatment indication of different professionals show the lack of a unifying criterion in the diagnosis and treatment plan of the disease. The Objectives of this research is to evaluate the attitude of a group of odontostomatologists to a clinical case with lesions compatible with caries, evaluating whether their criteria and attitude in diagnosis and treatment depend on their academic level, years of professional practice, the application of minimal intervention dentistry criteria and the usual practice in conservative restorative treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey was applied to dentists registered at the Illustrious Official College of Dentists of the Balearic Islands. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers from a real clinical case. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed of all the generated data and, to evaluate the association between the survey responses and the variables of interest, the χ^2 of independence test was performed. In addition, tests comparing the corresponding proportions were conducted using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Regarding pit and fissure significant differences were found in the diagnosis in 46 in terms of dentists' qualifications and in the treatment between the application of minimal intervention dentistry criteria and the usual practice in conservative restorative treatments. No significant differences were found in the other variables analyzed. As regards caries lesions on proximal surfaces, no significant differences were found in the diagnosis or treatment in any of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: That there is no change in the professional attitude towards the diagnosis and treatment of caries lesions in this group of professionals, having very interventionist criteria and attitudes in all variables analyzed. Key words:Atraumatic restorative treatment, caries detection, demineralization, non-cavitated caries lesions, radiography. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of caries, the stage of the disease and the indication of treatment are among the most controversial issues in dentistry. Studies comparing the diagnosis and treatment indication of different professionals show the lack of a unifying criterion in the diagnosis and treatment plan of the disease. The Objectives of this research is to evaluate the attitude of a group of odontostomatologists to a clinical case with lesions compatible with caries, evaluating whether their criteria and attitude in diagnosis and treatment depend on their academic level, years of professional practice, the application of minimal intervention dentistry criteria and the usual practice in conservative restorative treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey was applied to dentists registered at the Illustrious Official College of Dentists of the Balearic Islands. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers from a real clinical case. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed of all the generated data and, to evaluate the association between the survey responses and the variables of interest, the χ^2 of independence test was performed. In addition, tests comparing the corresponding proportions were conducted using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Regarding pit and fissure significant differences were found in the diagnosis in 46 in terms of dentists' qualifications and in the treatment between the application of minimal intervention dentistry criteria and the usual practice in conservative restorative treatments. No significant differences were found in the other variables analyzed. As regards caries lesions on proximal surfaces, no significant differences were found in the diagnosis or treatment in any of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: That there is no change in the professional attitude towards the diagnosis and treatment of caries lesions in this group of professionals, having very interventionist criteria and attitudes in all variables analyzed. Key words:Atraumatic restorative treatment, caries detection, demineralization, non-cavitated caries lesions, radiography. Copyright:
Authors: N P T Innes; C H Chu; M Fontana; E C M Lo; W M Thomson; S Uribe; M Heiland; S Jepsen; F Schwendicke Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: J Kühnisch; K R Ekstrand; I Pretty; S Twetman; C van Loveren; S Gizani; M Spyridonos Loizidou Journal: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent Date: 2016-01-05