4.6 Article

Periodontal furcation lesions: A survey of diagnosis and management by general dental practitioners

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 1441-1448

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13543

关键词

diagnosis; furcation; periodontitis; questionnaire; treatment

资金

  1. King's Undergraduate Research Fund (KURF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that general dental practitioners are relatively confident in diagnosing periodontal furcation involvement, but lack confidence in treating it. Lack of knowledge of management/referral pathways and lack of correct equipment were identified as the biggest barriers to FI management.
Aim The aim of this study was to explore general dental practitioners' (GDPs) attitude to periodontal furcation involvement (FI). Materials and methods An online survey focused on diagnosis and management of periodontal FI was circulated to GDPs in seven different countries. Results A total of 400 responses were collected. Nearly a fifth of participants reported rarely or never taking 6-point pocket charts; 65.8% of participants had access to a Nabers probe in their practice. When shown clinical pictures and radiographs of FI-involved molars, the majority of participants correctly diagnosed it. Although 47.1% of participants were very/extremely confident in detecting FI, only 8.9% felt very/extremely confident at treating it. Differences in responses were detected according to country and year of qualification, with a trend towards less interest in periodontal diagnosis and treatment in younger generations. Lack of knowledge of management/referral pathways (reported by 22.8%) and lack of correct equipment were considered the biggest barriers to FI management. Most participants (80.9%) were interested in learning more about FI, ideally face to face followed by online tutorials. Conclusions Plans should be put in place to improve general dentists' knowledge and ability to manage FI, as this can have a significant impact on public health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据