Dentists and dental hygienists' comprehension of HIV infection associated periodontal implications and management.

Background: In an era wherein, persuasive evidence continues to witness the association between systemic and periodontal diseases, the absence of scientific data on dental professionals' comprehension concerning the HIV infection and periodontal link is lamentably backward. Thus, the key objective of this research is to ascertain the extent of comprehension possessed by dentists and dental hygienists concerning periodontal implications and their management in HIV patients. Methods: It is a quantitative cross-sectional survey employing a descriptive approach focusing on a specific cohort of dental professionals. The study setting featured an online platform for the distribution of concealed, closed-ended, structured questionnaire. The data was gathered for four sections: six comprehension statements about periodontal manifestations in HIV patients; fifteen comprehension statements about HIV patients' periodontal management; eight familiarity statements about HIV management; and two educational statements about HIV. The comparisons of comprehension scores were drawn between variables such as specialties, age groups, and genders. Results: The survey represented 468 dental professionals representing distinct dental specialties, with a mean age of 24.26 ± 7.53 years. The mean comprehension score for all groups of participants is 10.31 ± 9.34 (33.25%). The highest scores were recorded among those aged 31-40 (20.67 ± 8.31), followed by those aged 40+ (19.38 ± 9.39), 20-30 (9.53 ± 8.96), and under 20 (8.92 ± 8.57), at p < 0.001. The female participants (15.06 ± 12.2) exhibited substantially better scores in contrast to the male participants (8.74 ± 7.57). Periodontists (27.77 ± 3.08) comprehended most, then the oral medicine practitioners (25 ± 0). Dental hygiene students (5.52 ± 3.56) and hygienists (7.67 ± 9.72) comprehended the least. The scores for all four domains assessed were disappointingly low: knowledge about HIV-periodontal manifestations (2.81 ± 2.18), knowledge about management of periodontal diseases in HIV patients (3.73 ± 4.7), familiarity with periodontal care in HIV patients (2.87 ± 3.01), and education received about HIV and periodontal diseases (0.91 ± 0.66). Conclusion: Dental professionals are notably incomprehensive, unfamiliar, and lacking in expertise in the realm of periodontal facets of HIV. The periodontists and oral medicine practitioners showed a substantial amount of comprehension, while the dental hygiene students and dental hygienists presented a conspicuously inadequate level of comprehension. The study outcome could potentially serve as an invaluable instrument for self-assessment by dental professionals and educators. HIV/AIDS ought not to persist as an unspoken taboo or disregarded subject within the dental field, particularly in periodontics, but rather should receive prominence in dental schools and professional development programs.

Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Three of the Most Citable Periodontal Journals from 2018 to 2022.

This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in periodontology. Three leading periodontology journals, the Journal of Periodontology (JOP), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JOCP), and the Journal of Periodontal Research (JOPR), were selected for this investigation. The RCTs were identified by manually searching for human trial articles published in these three journals. Two authors independently conducted the literature search, and a pre-piloted extraction sheet was used to screen the potential RCTs. The CONSORT checklist guidelines were employed to calculate the score value. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed by scoring a random sample of 10% of the papers in a second round conducted by the first examiner three months after the initial data collection. A search of abstracts published over a five-year period yielded 176 articles that reported RCTs, accounting for 11.7% of all articles published in the three journals. The highest number of RCTs was published in 2020, and more than half of the included RCTs (51%) originated from Europe. Many of the analyzed RCTs inadequately reported almost half of the items on the CONSORT checklist. Furthermore, univariate analysis revealed significant associations between certain factors and the overall CONSORT score, such as publication in JOP (p = 0.048), publication year of 2019 (p = 0.041) and 2021 (p = 0.042), first author from North America (p = 0.016), and RCTs with more than six authors (p = 0.042). Clinical trial research in periodontics has made significant progress in the past five years. However, there is room for improvement in adhering to the CONSORT guidelines.

A Cross-Sectional Study to Evaluate Dental Professionals' Knowledge of Antiplaque Mouth Rinse Agents and their Application in Periodontal Practice.

Background: Mouth rinse agents reduce inflammation and microbial burden, improving periodontal clinical parameters. Yet, improper clinical use of these compounds might have several deleterious repercussions. Given the lack of research on the knowledge and application of antiplaque mouth rinse agents, this research was conducted. Methods: The research is an electronic survey wherein responses were gathered for ten items with predetermined answers in addition to covariate data. The questions were conceived to illuminate the level of knowledge possessed by dental professionals and their utilization pattern in periodontal practice. The data gathered underwent quantitative statistical analysis. Results: Participants in the study included 100 dental professionals from various disciplines, all of whom agreed that mouth rinses are a vital adjuvant in periodontal therapy. Most acknowledged being aware of the various mouth rinse agents, but their knowledge and application of mouth rinses were largely confined to chlorhexidine gluconate, with little consideration being given to alternative antiplaque agents. Conclusion: Little knowledge exists among dental professionals regarding mouth rinse agents and their appropriate application. Dental schools, clinical advisory organizations, and other establishments could educate dental professionals on the specific guidelines for utilizing antiplaque mouth rinses in a dental context, especially as an adjunct to periodontal therapy.

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Dental Professional's Knowledge of Locally Delivered Antimicrobial Agents and their Application in Periodontal Practice.

Introduction: Dentists must employ locally delivered antimicrobial agents (LDAs) in a way that is in line with current recommendations from the scientific literature and the guidelines set by professional organizations. Considering the dearth of research on this topic, it is not known what strategies are adapted when using LDAs in their periodontal practice. So, the purpose of this research was to investigate how LDAs are utilized by dental professionals in their distinct periodontal practices. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study used a closed-ended questionnaire. Dental professionals received electronic copies of the eight-item questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed the relevance of LDAs, how frequently they are used, which ones are used most, the number of patients who receive them, their understanding of pharmacological activities, and their knowledge of current treatment guidelines. The questionnaire's validity and reliability were evaluated before being presented to participants. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), the input was analyzed. Results: A total of 120 dental professionals, with an average age of 34.7 years, answered the questionnaire. Half of these individuals have no history of ever using LDAs. The most frequent LDA used in its different forms was chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), followed by tetracycline. The majority of participants placed LDAs (80%) in less than 10 patients. Less than half acknowledged the different LDAs and their pharmacological activities. Not even 70% of clinicians were up-to-date on the current European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) guidelines. None of the participants discounted the significance of LDAs in periodontal care. Conclusion: Dental professionals regard LDAs as essential to periodontal therapy. Yet, they lacked knowledge about general, pharmacological, and clinical aspects. The patient experience with LDAs was limited by an inappropriate deployment pattern.