RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Decision-making in dentistry is a complex process, and this study evaluated factors that influence dentists' approaches in permanent mature teeth with irreversible pulpitis. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to a group of dental practitioners. The questionnaire surveyed dentists' opinions about the management of vital permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis including a case scenario. RESULTS: Data from 262 respondents were analysed. Barriers to perform vital pulp therapy (VPT) included presuming it an inappropriate long-term treatment (29.7%), lack of knowledge, insufficient access to materials, inadequate training and lack of confidence. Patient's preference (79.44%) and tooth restorability (91%) were the most frequently reported factors influencing treatment decisions. Dentists aged 25-35 years and who have 1-5 years of experience ranked extraction as a more successful treatment (P = 0.008; P = 0.003, respectively). Non-Australian graduates ranked pulpotomy to be a more successful procedure (P = 0.007), and public sector/hospital practitioners favoured extraction more than practitioners from other sectors (P = 0.003). Postgraduates/specialists preferred pulpotomy (P = 0.012) more than general dentists. Participants' clinical approaches for the management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: root canal treatment (45.0%), indirect pulp capping (22.9%), direct pulp capping (15.8%), pulpotomy (17.1%) and extraction (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Female, more experienced, overseas-educated dentists and endodontists preferred VPT for irreversible pulpitis in permanent mature teeth more than other participants. © 2024 Australian Dental Association.
RESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the levels of acceptance and discomfort between two types of functional appliances. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of patients who met the inclusion criteria were distributed randomly and equally into two groups: the Trainer for Kids™ made up of 26 patients with an average age of 10.3 years (Group A), and the modified Activator with 28 patients, with an average age of 10.6 years (Group B), as control. A special questionnaire including eight questions about tension, pressure, sensitive teeth, pain, impaired speech, impaired swallowing, oral constraint and lack of confidence in public caused by the appliance was administered at T1 (7 days), T2 (14 days), T3 (3 months), and T4 (6 months). RESULTS: The sensation of pressure, teeth sensitivity, pain and impaired speech declined significantly in Group A. All complaints decreased significantly in Group B, but the changes in 'lack of confidence in public' were not significant. Moreover the sensation of pressure, teeth sensitivity, oral constraint and impaired speech were significantly higher in Group A than in Group B. CONCLUSION: The modified Activator caused less discomfort than the Trainer for Kids™ and was more acceptable.