'SHEEP scoring': A practical tool for evaluating the prognosis and restorability of compromised teeth.

Primary dental journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-03 DOI:10.1177/20501684251328184
Martin G Kelleher, Reanna A Craig, Nagina Safi
{"title":"'SHEEP scoring': A practical tool for evaluating the prognosis and restorability of compromised teeth.","authors":"Martin G Kelleher, Reanna A Craig, Nagina Safi","doi":"10.1177/20501684251328184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article describes a practical approach to assessing compromised teeth using a process called 'SHEEP scoring' which is an acronym based on the categories of <b>S</b>tructure, <b>H</b>istory, <b>E</b>ndodontic, <b>E</b>xpertise, and <b>P</b>eriodontal. Any compromised tooth is awarded marks out of ten under each of those five categories. Totalling those five scores (out of a maximum 50) and multiplying that number by two results in a patient-understandable 'percentage chance odds' for that compromised tooth. This pragmatic way of identifying the pre-existing problems first, before quantifying those in an intelligible way, helps to develop trust by making potential patients more aware of any existing problems with their tooth/teeth. That analysis ought to be undertaken separately and well before offering any theoretically possible solutions.Only when both sides understand the significant problems that already exist, should a '<b>B</b>enefits <b>R</b>isks <b>a</b>nd <b>N</b>othing (BRAN) analysis' be undertaken with the patient. This involves discussing the benefits and risks that might be involved in different approaches, compared with the option of doing nothing. The main objective is to help patients to evaluate their likely odds of some 'theoretically possible' treatment being successful in their particular case. Those explanations lead to outlining the time and costs that could be involved, as opposed to monitoring the situation while helping that patient to prevent further deterioration. Analysing and discussing existing problems first (separately to discussing potential treatments, and thereby avoiding availability bias and confirmation bias), means that patients can exercise their autonomy over how they would like to proceed with some treatment - or with none - which should help to ensure that their consent is likely to be valid for whatever decision they make.</p>","PeriodicalId":519951,"journal":{"name":"Primary dental journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"101-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20501684251328184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article describes a practical approach to assessing compromised teeth using a process called 'SHEEP scoring' which is an acronym based on the categories of Structure, History, Endodontic, Expertise, and Periodontal. Any compromised tooth is awarded marks out of ten under each of those five categories. Totalling those five scores (out of a maximum 50) and multiplying that number by two results in a patient-understandable 'percentage chance odds' for that compromised tooth. This pragmatic way of identifying the pre-existing problems first, before quantifying those in an intelligible way, helps to develop trust by making potential patients more aware of any existing problems with their tooth/teeth. That analysis ought to be undertaken separately and well before offering any theoretically possible solutions.Only when both sides understand the significant problems that already exist, should a 'Benefits Risks and Nothing (BRAN) analysis' be undertaken with the patient. This involves discussing the benefits and risks that might be involved in different approaches, compared with the option of doing nothing. The main objective is to help patients to evaluate their likely odds of some 'theoretically possible' treatment being successful in their particular case. Those explanations lead to outlining the time and costs that could be involved, as opposed to monitoring the situation while helping that patient to prevent further deterioration. Analysing and discussing existing problems first (separately to discussing potential treatments, and thereby avoiding availability bias and confirmation bias), means that patients can exercise their autonomy over how they would like to proceed with some treatment - or with none - which should help to ensure that their consent is likely to be valid for whatever decision they make.

“绵羊评分”:评估受损牙齿预后和可修复性的实用工具。
这篇文章描述了一种实用的方法来评估受损的牙齿使用的过程称为“绵羊评分”,这是基于结构,历史,牙髓,专业知识和牙周分类的首字母缩略词。任何受损的牙齿都会在这五个类别中获得10分的分数。把这五个分数加起来(最多50分),再乘以2,就得到了一个患者可以理解的牙齿受损的“概率百分比”。这种务实的方法首先确定已经存在的问题,然后再以一种可理解的方式量化这些问题,通过让潜在的患者更加意识到他们的牙齿存在的任何问题,有助于建立信任。这种分析应该在提供任何理论上可能的解决方案之前单独进行。只有当双方都了解已经存在的重大问题时,才应该对患者进行“利益风险和无(BRAN)分析”。这包括讨论与什么都不做的选择相比,不同方法可能涉及的利益和风险。其主要目的是帮助患者评估某些“理论上可行”的治疗方法在其特定情况下成功的可能性。这些解释会导致概述可能涉及的时间和成本,而不是在帮助患者防止进一步恶化的同时监测情况。首先分析和讨论现有的问题(与讨论潜在的治疗方法分开,从而避免可用性偏见和确认偏见),意味着患者可以行使他们的自主权,决定他们想要如何进行某种治疗——或者不进行治疗——这应该有助于确保他们的同意对他们做出的任何决定都是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信