| 1. |
- Malmberg, Leona, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
Endodontic follow-up practices, sources of knowledge, and self-assessed treatment outcome among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0001-6357 .- 1502-3850. ; 78:7, s. 547-552
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To reduce the gap between what can be achieved in endodontic treatments and the observed treatment outcome among general dental practitioners, the present study set out to assess the status of the endodontic practices as regards to knowledge and self-assessed skills among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway. Material and method: The questionnaire was sent to 1384 general dental practitioners. It contained questions regarding access to continuing education in endodontics, sources of knowledge for clinical management of patients, post-operative follow-ups, self-assessed success-rate, and the initial diagnosis impact on the outcome of endodontic treatments. Results: The response rate was 61.4%. Almost half estimated their endodontic success-rate to be 90%. About two-thirds of the respondents did not know, or did not believe, that the initial diagnosis could affect the outcome of their endodontic treatments. Respondents who did not believe the diagnosis could impact the outcome were more likely to estimate their success rate as the highest (p<.001). Less than half performed post-operative follow-ups a year after treatment. A third of the respondents had not attended any continuing endodontic education. Conclusion: Dentists who do not receive regular feedback on their treatments may lack insight into their own shortcomings. If this is combined with insufficient knowledge and understanding it may result in sub-par endodontic treatments being performed. It is important to have reliable ways to communicate current endodontic knowledge and to establish robust methods that may help dentists accurately assess their own performance in endodontics. © 2020, © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society.
|
|
| 2. |
- Malmberg, Leona, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
Endodontic operative field asepsis: a comparison between general dentists and specialists
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 0001-6357 .- 1502-3850. ; 81:8, s. 603-608
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate the establishment of an aseptic endodontic operative field in general dentistry by assessing general dentists' ability to reduce the amount of contamination to a non-cultivable level, and to compare the operative field asepsis at a general dentistry clinic with that at an endodontic specialist clinic.Materials and MethodsA total of 353 teeth were included in the study (153 in general dentistry, 200 at the specialist clinic). After isolation, control samples were taken, the operative fields disinfected with 30% hydrogen peroxide (1 min) followed by 5% iodine tincture or .5% chlorhexidine solution. Samples were collected from the access cavity area and buccal area, placed in a fluid thioglycolate medium, incubated (37 & DEG;, 7 d), evaluated for growth/non-growth.ResultsSignificantly more contamination was observed at the general dentistry clinic (31.6%, 95/301), than at the endodontic specialist clinic (7.0%, 27/386) (p <.001). In general dentistry, significantly more positive samples were collected in the buccal area than in the occlusal area. Significantly more positive samples were collected when the chlorhexidine protocol had been used, both in general dentistry (p <.001) and at the specialist clinic (p =.028).ConclusionsThe result from this study shows insufficient endodontic aseptic control in general dentistry. At the specialist clinic, both disinfection protocols were able to reduce the amount of microorganisms to a non-cultivable level. The observed difference between the protocols may not reflect a true difference in the effectiveness of the antimicrobial solutions, as confounding factors may have contributed to the result.
|
|
