4.1 Article

General practice dentists' knowledge of temporomandibular disorders in children and adolescents

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 216-221

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2007.00458.x

Keywords

adolescent; children; education; questionnaire; temporomanclibular disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: The aim of the study was to map general practice dentists' (GPDs) knowledge of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in children and adolescents. Materials and methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 286 Swedish dentists in the Public Dental Service and 17 TMD specialists with documented research experience. The questionnaire contained 37 statements on aetiology, diagnostics, classification, chronic pain and pain behaviour, treatment, and prognosis. Each statement was judged on a 0-10 point scale with the endpoint definitions agree or disagree. Results: The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 87%. In 28 of all 37 statements, the TMD specialists endorsed a consensus, i.e. > 75% of the specialists had the same opinion about the statement. TMD specialists differed most in opinion in the domain diagnostics and classification. In 65% of the statements, differences in knowledge between GPDs and TMD specialists were non-significant. The greatest number of significant between-group differences was found in the domain treatment and prognosis. Most of these statements were related to morphological factors. Conclusion: There is a high degree of consensus in TMD knowledge amongst the TMD specialists and a high degree of agreement in knowledge between GPDs and TMD specialists. In some areas, however, TMD specialists still need to reach a consensus which is founded on evidence-based TMD knowledge in children and adolescents and that can be used in undergraduate teaching. It is therefore important to develope and strengthen the undergraduate dental teaching in TMD and orofacial pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available