牙科修复中的再干预:塞内加尔牙医的知识和态度

Elhadji Cyre Diop, Mor Nguirane Diene, S. Niang, Babacar Faye
{"title":"牙科修复中的再干预:塞内加尔牙医的知识和态度","authors":"Elhadji Cyre Diop, Mor Nguirane Diene, S. Niang, Babacar Faye","doi":"10.18231/j.ijohd.2024.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Replacing or repairing a defective restoration has become a daily practice in dentistry. It is therefore necessary to know how to evaluate a restoration to decide whether or not to re-intervene and then to choose whether to replace, repair, or refrain from doing so by setting up a monitoring system. The best-known evaluation criteria accepted by the scientific community are the modified Ryge / USPHS criteria and the FDI criteria. In Senegal, no such study has been carried out, and it was with this in mind that our study was carried out, involving 158 dental surgeons. The results showed a predominance of men (70.89%). The average age was relatively young at 37. The study confirmed that re-intervention is common practice among the dentists surveyed: the majority (77.72%) had done a re-intervention less than a week before the survey. The most common reason encountered by dentists for their last re-intervention was fracture of the tooth or restorative material with a rate of 36.71%, then we have caries recurrence and advanced decay and wear with the same rate of 17.09%, followed by pain or hypersensitivity with a rate of 16.46%. After diagnosis, 73% replaced the restoration deemed defective, versus 22% who chose to repair the restoration. Clinical evaluation criteria were used by only 12.66% of the sample. The majority, 74.05% of practitioners, take into account the benefit/risk/cost ratio. The results of this study show the limits of dental surgeons' knowledge in re-intervention, as well as the lack of codification of parameters related to this practice. It is therefore necessary to develop training programs and teaching units for both initial and continuing training.","PeriodicalId":516738,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-intervention in restorative dentistry: Knowledge and attitudes of senegalese dentists\",\"authors\":\"Elhadji Cyre Diop, Mor Nguirane Diene, S. Niang, Babacar Faye\",\"doi\":\"10.18231/j.ijohd.2024.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Replacing or repairing a defective restoration has become a daily practice in dentistry. It is therefore necessary to know how to evaluate a restoration to decide whether or not to re-intervene and then to choose whether to replace, repair, or refrain from doing so by setting up a monitoring system. The best-known evaluation criteria accepted by the scientific community are the modified Ryge / USPHS criteria and the FDI criteria. In Senegal, no such study has been carried out, and it was with this in mind that our study was carried out, involving 158 dental surgeons. The results showed a predominance of men (70.89%). The average age was relatively young at 37. The study confirmed that re-intervention is common practice among the dentists surveyed: the majority (77.72%) had done a re-intervention less than a week before the survey. The most common reason encountered by dentists for their last re-intervention was fracture of the tooth or restorative material with a rate of 36.71%, then we have caries recurrence and advanced decay and wear with the same rate of 17.09%, followed by pain or hypersensitivity with a rate of 16.46%. After diagnosis, 73% replaced the restoration deemed defective, versus 22% who chose to repair the restoration. Clinical evaluation criteria were used by only 12.66% of the sample. The majority, 74.05% of practitioners, take into account the benefit/risk/cost ratio. The results of this study show the limits of dental surgeons' knowledge in re-intervention, as well as the lack of codification of parameters related to this practice. It is therefore necessary to develop training programs and teaching units for both initial and continuing training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516738,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"1 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijohd.2024.024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijohd.2024.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

更换或修复有缺陷的修复体已成为牙科的日常工作。因此,有必要了解如何对修复体进行评估,以决定是否重新介入,然后选择是更换、修复还是通过建立监测系统避免这样做。科学界公认的最著名的评估标准是修改后的 Ryge / USPHS 标准和 FDI 标准。塞内加尔尚未开展过此类研究,因此我们的研究涉及 158 名牙科医生。结果显示,男性占多数(70.89%)。平均年龄为 37 岁,相对年轻。研究证实,在接受调查的牙科医生中,再次介入治疗是常见的做法:大多数牙科医生(77.72%)在调查前不到一周的时间内进行过再次介入治疗。牙医最后一次重新干预最常见的原因是牙齿或修复材料断裂,比例为 36.71%,然后是龋齿复发和晚期蛀蚀和磨损,比例同为 17.09%,其次是疼痛或过敏,比例为 16.46%。诊断后,73%的人更换了有缺陷的修复体,而 22% 的人选择了修复。只有 12.66% 的样本使用临床评估标准。大多数从业者(74.05%)会考虑收益/风险/成本比。这项研究的结果表明,牙科医生在再干预方面的知识有限,而且缺乏与这一做法相关的参数编纂。因此,有必要为初始培训和继续培训制定培训计划和教学单元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-intervention in restorative dentistry: Knowledge and attitudes of senegalese dentists
Replacing or repairing a defective restoration has become a daily practice in dentistry. It is therefore necessary to know how to evaluate a restoration to decide whether or not to re-intervene and then to choose whether to replace, repair, or refrain from doing so by setting up a monitoring system. The best-known evaluation criteria accepted by the scientific community are the modified Ryge / USPHS criteria and the FDI criteria. In Senegal, no such study has been carried out, and it was with this in mind that our study was carried out, involving 158 dental surgeons. The results showed a predominance of men (70.89%). The average age was relatively young at 37. The study confirmed that re-intervention is common practice among the dentists surveyed: the majority (77.72%) had done a re-intervention less than a week before the survey. The most common reason encountered by dentists for their last re-intervention was fracture of the tooth or restorative material with a rate of 36.71%, then we have caries recurrence and advanced decay and wear with the same rate of 17.09%, followed by pain or hypersensitivity with a rate of 16.46%. After diagnosis, 73% replaced the restoration deemed defective, versus 22% who chose to repair the restoration. Clinical evaluation criteria were used by only 12.66% of the sample. The majority, 74.05% of practitioners, take into account the benefit/risk/cost ratio. The results of this study show the limits of dental surgeons' knowledge in re-intervention, as well as the lack of codification of parameters related to this practice. It is therefore necessary to develop training programs and teaching units for both initial and continuing training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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