SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Dental Research / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

The approaches of Turkish dentists to the invasive treatment

Ömer HATİPOĞLU
Katibe Tuğçe TEMUR
Pages
56–62
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

The selection of dental material was significantlyrelated to the workplace factor (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To research the effect of gender, workplace, and experience onthe invasive treatment approaches of dentists in Turkey.Methodology: In May 2018, 323 dentists working in Turkeyparticipated in a survey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The dataobtained were analyzed using Pearson's χ2test.Results: Gender was significantly related to the choice of invasivetreatment approach for patients who have high (p=0.024) or low riskof caries (p=0.032).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The selection of dental material was significantlyrelated to the workplace factor (p
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To research the effect of gender, workplace, and experience onthe invasive treatment approaches of dentists in Turkey.Methodology: In May 2018, 323 dentists working in Turkeyparticipated in a survey. In the questionnaire, dentists were askedabout their demographic characteristics such as gender, experience,and workplace. In addition, the invasive treatment initiation stagesand the dental materials and techniques that they preferred forpatients with low and high risk of caries were queried. The dataobtained were analyzed using Pearson's χ2test.Results: Gender was significantly related to the choice of invasivetreatment approach for patients who have high (p=0.024) or low riskof caries (p=0.032). The experience factor was not significantlyrelated to the choice of invasive treatment approach (p>0.05), but theworkplace factor was significantly related for those with a low risk ofcaries (p=0.037). The selection of dental material was significantlyrelated to the workplace factor (p

🔖

Cite This Article

HATİPOĞLU, Ö., TEMUR, K. T. (2022). The approaches of Turkish dentists to the invasive treatment. International Dental Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 56–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/539561

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. The Lancet 2007; 369:51–9. (Crossref
  2. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, Leal SC, Gordan VV, Eden E. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries–a review. International dental journal 2012; 62: 223–43. (Crossref
  3. Kay E, Locker D. Variations in restorative treatment decisions: an international comparison. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 1996; 24: 376–9. (Crossref
  4. Gordan VV, Garvan CW, Heft MW, Fellows JL, Qvist V, Rindal DB, et al. Restorative treatment thresholds for interproximal primary caries based on radiographic images: findings from The Dental PBRN. Gen Dent 2009;57:654-63
  5. Vidnes-Kopperud S, Tveit A, Espelid I. Changes in the treatment concept for approximal caries from 1983 to 2009 in Norway. Caries research 2011; 45: 113–20. (Crossref
  6. Mejàre I, Sundberg H, Espelid I, Tveit AB. Caries assessment and restorative treatment thresholds reported by Swedish dentists. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1999; 57: 149–54. (Crossref
  7. Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ. The toxicology of mercury— current exposures and clinical manifestations. New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 349: 1731–7. (Crossref
  8. Doméjean-Orliaguet S, Tubert-Jeannin S, Riordan PJ, Espelid I, Tveit AB. French dentists' restorative treatment decisions. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004;2(2):125-31. (Crossref
  9. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry—a review. International Dental Journal 2000; 50: 1–12. (Crossref
  10. Kakudate N, Sumida F, Matsumoto Y, Manabe K, Yokoyama Y, Gilbert G, et al. Restorative treatment thresholds for proximal caries in dental PBRN. Journal of dental research 2012; 91: 1202–8. (Crossref
  11. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Mejàre I, Sundberg H, Hallonsten A-L. Restorative treatment decisions on occlusal caries in Scandinavia. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 2001; 59: 21–7. (Crossref
  12. Khalaf ME, Alomari QD, Ngo H, Doméjean S. Restorative treatment thresholds: factors influencing the treatment thresholds and modalities of general dentists in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice 2014; 23: 357–62. (Crossref
  13. Nuttall N, Pitts N. Restorative treatment thresholds reported to be used by dentists in Scotland. British dental journal 1990; 169: 119. (Crossref
  14. Traebert J, Marcenes W, Kreutz JV, Oliveira R, Piazza CH, Peres MA. Brazilian dentists' restorative treatment decisions. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2005;3(1):53–60. (Crossref
  15. Baraba A, Anić