| Literature DB >> 35568528 |
Anandina Irmagita Soegyanto1, Yuniardini Septorini Wimardhani2, Diah Ayu Maharani3, Marc Tennant4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teledentistry is the use of information and communication technology to provide dental services from distant locations. The use of teledentistry is highly beneficial in the COVID-19 pandemic era.Entities:
Keywords: Dentists; Pandemic; Perception; Teledentistry; Telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35568528 PMCID: PMC9485514 DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.04.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Dent J ISSN: 0020-6539 Impact factor: 2.607
Description of demographics, professional characteristics, internet usage, and preferred communication tools of Indonesian dentists (N = 652).
| Characteristic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| 20–34 | 302 | 46.3 |
| 35–44 | 230 | 35.3 |
| 45–54 | 86 | 13.2 |
| 55–64 | 32 | 4.9 |
| ≥65 | 2 | .3 |
| Male | 155 | 23.8 |
| Female | 497 | 76.2 |
| | ||
| Specialists | 113 | 17.3 |
| General dentists | 484 | 74.2 |
| Residents | 55 | 8.4 |
| 0–5 | 180 | 27.6 |
| 6–10 | 172 | 26.4 |
| 11–15 | 137 | 21.0 |
| >15 | 163 | 25.0 |
| Not remote | 569 | 87.3 |
| Remote | 70 | 10.7 |
| Very remote | 13 | 2 |
| Public health centre | 210 | 32.2 |
| Private clinic | 205 | 31.4 |
| Hospital | 166 | 25.5 |
| Academic | 71 | 10.9 |
| 1–19 | 137 | 21.0 |
| 20–34 | 173 | 26.5 |
| 35–49 | 288 | 44.2 |
| 50–64 | 38 | 5.8 |
| >65 | 16 | 2.5 |
| <1 | 15 | 2.3 |
| 2–4 | 198 | 30.4 |
| 5–7 | 211 | 32.4 |
| 8–10 | 107 | 16.4 |
| >11 | 121 | 18.6 |
| <1 | 15 | 2.3 |
| <1 | 221 | 33.9 |
| 2–4 | 288 | 44.2 |
| 5–7 | 85 | 13.0 |
| 8–10 | 32 | 4.9 |
| >11 | 26 | 4.0 |
| In person | 258 | 39.57 |
| By phone | 332 | 50.92 |
| Text message | 62 | 0.95 |
| Letters | 3 | 0.46 |
| 81 | 12.42 | |
| Social media | 626 | 96.01 |
| Video conference | 147 | 22.55 |
Dentists’ perception of teledentistry usefulness for the benefit of the dental practice and patients.
| SD (%) | D (%) | N (%) | A (%) | SA (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teledentistry would provide an accurate diagnosis in a clinical setting | 24 (3.7) | 145 (22.2) | 237 (36.3) | 200 (30.7) | 46 (7.1) |
| Teledentistry would help shorten the waiting list | 0 (0) | 9 (1.4) | 45 (6.9) | 408 (62.6) | 190 (29.1) |
| Teledentistry would enhance guidelines and advice | 1 (0.2) | 20 (3.1) | 112 (17.2) | 401 (61.5) | 118 (18.1) |
| Teledentistry would improve the interaction between peers | 2 (0.3) | 24 (3.7) | 92 (14.1) | 390 (59.8) | 144 (22.1) |
| Teledentistry would provide a safe atmosphere for practicing dentistry | 1 (0.2) | 17 (2.6) | 79 (12.1) | 338 (51.8) | 217 (33.3) |
| Teledentistry would make patients’ referrals more efficient | 1 (0.2) | 12 (1.8) | 88 (13.5) | 403 (61.8) | 148 (22.8) |
| Teledentistry would enhance clinical training and continuing education | 12 (1.8) | 80 (12.3) | 189 (29) | 306 (46.9) | 65 (10) |
| Teledentistry would reduce costs for the dental practices | 1 (0.2) | 54 (8.3) | 182 (27.9) | 334 (51.2) | 81 (12.4) |
| Teledentistry would increase treatment time spent with the patient | 12 (1.8) | 150 (23) | 224 (34.4) | 209 (32.1) | 57 (8.7) |
| Teledentistry would necessitate an extra appointment for taking photographs | 1 (0.2) | 39 (6) | 102 (15.6) | 422 (64.7) | 88 (13.5) |
| Teledentistry would save time compared with a referral letter | 0 (0) | 18 (2.8) | 62 (9.5) | 402 (61.7) | 170 (26.1) |
| Teledentistry would be too expensive to set up | 11 (1.7) | 189 (29) | 307 (47.1) | 129 (19.8) | 16 (2.5) |
| Teledentistry would provide adequate diagnostic information | 4 (0.6) | 104 (16) | 161 (24.7) | 315 (48.3) | 68 (10.4) |
| Teledentistry would save money for patients | 0 (0) | 16 (2.5) | 133 (20.4) | 344 (52.8) | 159 (24.2) |
| Teledentistry would improve communication with patients | 2 (0.3) | 14 (2.1) | 74 (11.3) | 384 (58.9) | 178 (27.3) |
| Teledentistry would be helpful for patient education | 6 (0) | 28 (0.9) | 389 (4.3) | 389 (59.7) | 229 (35.1) |
| Teledentistry would help to avoid unnecessary travel to the dental clinic | 0 (0) | 12 (1.8) | 42 (6.4) | 373 (57.2) | 225 (34.5) |
| Teledentistry would be helpful in monitoring the patient's condition | 1 (0.2) | 13 (2) | 54 (8.3) | 435 (66.7) | 149 (22.9) |
| Teledentistry would be convenient and well received by patients | 3 (0.5) | 23 (5.5) | 239 (36.7) | 289 (44.3) | 85 (13) |
| Teledentistry would be useful for patients in remote areas | 6 (0.9) | 36 (3.5) | 67 (10.3) | 319 (48.9) | 237 (36.3) |
| Teledentistry should be covered by dental insurance plans | 4 (0.6) | 17 (2.6) | 119 (18.3) | 301 (46.2) | 211 (32.4) |
SD, strongly disagree; D, disagree; N, neutral; A, agree; SA, strongly agree.
Dentists’ concerns about data security and patients’ consent.
| VC (%) | LC (%) | NA (%) | NP (%) | NC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gaining patient consent for teleconsultation | 44 (6.7) | 183 (28.1) | 234 (35.9) | 172 (26.4) | 19 (2.9) |
| Confidentiality when data are sent online | 126 (19.3) | 317 (48.6) | 133 (20.4) | 71 (10.9) | 5 (0.8) |
| Potential for digital forgery | 107 (16.4) | 377 (57.8) | 110 (16.9) | 54 (8,3) | 4 (0,6) |
| Incompatible hardware and software | 86 (13.2) | 382 (58.6) | 114 (17.5) | 65 (10) | 5 (0.8) |
| Reliability of teledental equipment | 66 (10.1) | 337 (51.7) | 168 (25.8) | 75 (11.5) | 6 (0.9) |
VC, very concerned; LC, little concerned; NA, not feeling either way; NP, not particularly concerned; NC, not concerned at all.
Fig. 1Dentists’ opinion related to the preferred dental specialty for application of teledentistry (%).
Statistical analysis between dentists’ demographic variables of the respondents with the 4 domains of teledentistry dentists’ perception (Kruskal–Wallis test).
| Variable | Dentists’ perception of the usefulness of the teledentistry for dental practice (3.32 ± 0.34) | Dentists’ perception of the capability of the teledentistry to improve practice (3.87 ± 0.53) | Dentists’ perception of the usefulness of the teledentistry for patients (4.07 ± 0.49) | Dentists’ concern about data security and patients’ consent (2.4 ± 0.65) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20–34 | 3.31 (0.32) | 3.83 (0.49) | 4.03 (0.45) | 2.39 (0.62) |
| 35–44 | 3.31 (0.36) | 3.88 (0.58) | 4.10 (0.56) | 2.41 (0.65) |
| 45–54 | 3.37 (0.34) | 3.94 (0.50) | 4.12 (0.48) | 2.39 (0.73) |
| 55–64 | 3.35 (0.27) | 3.91 (0.47) | 4.12 (0.41) | 2.49 (0.64) |
| ≥65 | 3.43 (0.40) | 3.60 (0.28) | 3.75 (0.00) | 2.30 (0.42) |
| | .743 | .327 | .141 | .900 |
| Male | 3.29 (0.35) | 3.85 (0.59) | 4.06 (0.54) | 2.46 (0.73) |
| Female | 3.33 (0.33) | 3.87 (0.50) | 4.08 (0.48) | 2.39 (0.61) |
| | .344 | .697 | .957 | .391 |
| Specialists | 3.31 (0.35) | 3.81 (0.53) | 4.13 (0.48) | 2.42 (0.59) |
| General dentists | 3.33 (0.33) | 3.89 (0.53) | 4.06 (0.49) | 2.39 (0.66) |
| Residents | 3.31 (0.35) | 3.82 (0.50) | 4.04 (0.49) | 2.48 (0.64) |
| | .484 | .089 | .475 | .587 |
| 0–5 | 3.30 (0.34) | 3.84 (0.52) | 4.07 (0.44) | 2.42 (0.63) |
| 6–10 | 3.31 (0.33) | 3.85 (0.51) | 3.98 (0.54) | 2.37 (0.62) |
| 11–15 | 3.33 (0.36) | 3.86 (0.55) | 4.11 (0.49) | 2.40 (0.63) |
| >15 | 3.35 (0.32) | 3.92 (0.53) | 4.15 (0.49) | 2.42 (0.70) |
| | .702 | .512 | .039 | .914 |
| Not remote | 3.32 (0.34) | 3.85 (0.53) | 4.08 (0.48) | 2.41 (0.66) |
| Remote | 3.37 (0.31) | 3.92 (0.46) | 3.99 (0.53) | 2.37 (0.55) |
| Very remote | 3.35 (0.51) | 4.09 (0.73) | 4.25 (0.67) | 2.51 (0.66) |
| | .491 | .257 | .183 | .848 |
Significant P value < .05 (Kruskal–Wallis test).