RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: Crown fractures are common traumatic dental injuries and tooth fragment reattachment is a viable option for restoring a fractured tooth. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and experience of dentists in the Federal District regarding the tooth fragment reattachment technique for enamel and dentin fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the cross-sectional observational study, an electronic form was designed with objective and self-report questions for dentists. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, with their absolute and relative frequencies. For the analysis of categorical variables, the nonparametric chi-squared or Fisher exact association tests were used in the statistical software R (version 4.2.1). RESULTS: A total of 416 dentists participated in the study (58.9% female and 41.1% male). Of these, 70% declared they knew about fragment reattachment, but only 42.3% reported previous experience with this procedure. The most common storage medium used for the fractured fragment was milk (78.1%), and the bonding material used for reattachment was light-cured composite resin (86.3%). A majority (66.3%) reported that for a patient with enamel and dentin fracture, with the crown fragment in good condition, they would choose to do the reattachment. CONCLUSION: Dentists demonstrated that they had adequate knowledge about the tooth fragment technique, although many did not have previous experience with this procedure.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) of dentists on Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID). DATA: Cross-sectional studies that analyzed KAP outcomes on MID principles were included. SOURCES: Eight databases (Cochrane, DOSS, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and the gray literature were searched on January 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected the included studies, initially by screening titles and abstracts and, finally, by full-text reading. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Assessment Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Proportion meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model for data analysis. Cochran's Q test was used to assess the heterogeneity and the I² statistic for evaluation of true variation due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 2079 studies initially identified, twelve were included in the systematic review. Twenty-four statements about MID were included in the meta-analysis, based on data from ten studies (n = 1728 participants). The pooled proportion of knowledge on MID was 75.66% (95%CI: 69.33 - 81.48; p < 0.01; I²: 97%; Tau2: 0.0456) and of attitudes and practice was 47.95% (95%CI: 38.55-57.43; p < 0.01; I²: 98%; Tau2: 0.0743). The higher prevalences rates were in the "knowledge" field, and the lowest was in "attitudes and practice". CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the knowledge of dentists on MID topics is acceptable, and the attitudes and practices need improvements. The studies lacked uniformity in methods and there is still a need for more studies to elucidate the KAP of dentists worldwide. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the cognizance and the way oral healthcare professionals are treating dental caries is the first step to expanding the minimal intervention evidence into a dental practice. The final goal is to change the practice and make Minimal Intervention Dentistry the standard of care for dental caries worldwide. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021257518.