Journals / Selcuk Dental Journal / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

The Evaluation of Diagnosis and Treatment Approaches of a Group of Turkish Pedodontists

Bir Grup Türk Pedodontistin Tanı ve Tedavi Yaklaşımlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
591–599
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Further surveys are needed to establish a clinical portrait of Turkish pedodontists.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and treatment approaches of a group of Turkish pedodontists.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: 13-question survey which covered diagnostic and treatment planning with personal information was sent by e-mail to 210 Pedodontist working in private clinics and universities in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further surveys are needed to establish a clinical portrait of Turkish pedodontists.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and treatment approaches of a group of Turkish pedodontists. Methods: 13-question survey which covered diagnostic and treatment planning with personal information was sent by e-mail to 210 Pedodontist working in private clinics and universities in Turkey. Results: 140 out of 210 questionnaires were answered and the response rate was 70%. The average age of the pedodontists participating in the study was 31.2. 16.4 % of the participants were lecturers, 16.4 % were specialists and 67.2% were doctoral / specialist students. The answers given by the participants to the questions including diagnosis and treatment approaches have differences in percentage for each question. Conclusion: Within the findings of this study, differences in the diagnostic and treatment approaches of pedodontists are observed. Further surveys are needed to establish a clinical portrait of Turkish pedodontists.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bir grup türk pedodontistin tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde ve özel kurumlarda çalışmakta olan 210 pedodontiste kişisel bilgiler ile birlikte tanı ve tedavi planlamaları kapsamında 13 soruluk anket formu e-posta yoluyla gönderilmiştir. Bulgular: Gönderilen 210 anketten 140’ı cevaplandırılmış olup cevaplanma yüzdesi % 70’dir. Çalışmaya katılan pedodontistlerin yaşlarının ortalaması 31.2’dir. Katılımcıların % 16.4’ü öğretim üyesi, % 16.4’ü uzman ve % 67.2 si ise doktora/uzmanlık öğrencisiydi. Katılımcıların tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarını içeren sorulara verdikleri cevaplar her soru için yüzdesel farklılıklara sahiptir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları dahilinde pedodontistlerin tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarında farklılıklar görülmektedir. Türk pedodontistlerinin klinik portresini oluşturmak için daha fazla anket çalışmasına ihtiyaç vardır

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPÇUOĞLU, G., AYDINBELGE, M. (2021). The Evaluation of Diagnosis and Treatment Approaches of a Group of Turkish Pedodontists. Selcuk Dental Journal, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 591–599. https://ajindex.com/articles/414987

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Koch G, Poulsen S, eds. Çocuk Dişhekimliğine Klinik Yaklaşım. 2nd edition. Koch G, Poulsen S. Rotatif Yayınevi. İstanbul. 2012. 3-4. 2
  2. Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Mc Tigue DJ, Field Jr HW, Nowak AJ, eds. Çocuk Diş Hekimliği Bebeklikten Ergenliğe. 4th edition. Pinkham JR, Berg JH. Atlas Kitapçılık. Ankara. 2009. 2-3. 3
  3. McWhorter AG, Townsend JA, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry S. Behavior symposium Workshop A report - current guidelines/revision. Pediatr Dent 2014;36:152-3. 4
  4. Mutluay MS, Mutluay AT. Süt dişlerinde restoratif materyal seçimi ve etkileyen faktörler. Selcuk Dent J 2016;3:151-5. 5
  5. Bawazir OA, Salama FS. Clinical evaluation of root canal obturation methods in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2006;28:39-47. 6
  6. AAPD. Oral Health Policies & Recommendations (The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry). Available at https://www.aapd.org/research/oralhealth-policies--recommendations/. Accessed June 14, 2020. 7
  7. EAPD. Policies and Guidelines. Available at: https://www.eapd.eu/index.php/policies-andguidelines. Accessed June 12, 2020. 8
  8. Varughese RE, Andrews P, Sigal MJ, Azarpazhooh A. An Assessment of Direct Restorative Material Use in Posterior Teeth by American and Canadian Pediatric Dentists: I. Material Choice. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:489-96. 9
  9. Öz E, Kırzıoğlu Z. Mezuniyet sonrasi diş hekimlerinin pedodontik tedavilere yaklaşımları. Balıkesir Saglik Bil Derg 2018;7:23-33. 10.10.O'Connor BM. Contemporary trends in orthodontic practice: a national survey. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:163-70. 11.11.O'Brien KD, Roberts C. An analysis of the effects of place of childhood, undergraduate and postgraduate education upon the regional distribution of specialist orthodontic practitioners. Br Dent J 1991;171:280-2. 12.12.Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002;3:23-39. 13.13.Naqvi A. Oral midazolam in pediatric dentistry. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 1996;13:427-40. 14.14.Hartgraves PM, Primosch RE. An evaluation of oral and nasal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation. ASDC J Dent Child 1994;61:175-81. 15.Epstein JB, Chong S, Le ND. A survey of antibiotic use in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1600-9. 16.16.Ashkenazi M, Ashkenazi S. Judicious use of antibiotics in dental practice. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2004;21:27-34. 17.Koch G, Poulsen S, eds. Çocuk Dişhekimliğine Klinik Yaklaşım. 2nd edition. Pedodontik Endodonti.Schröder U. Rotatif Yayınevi. İstanbul. 2012. 156