ABSTRACT
Abstract This study aimed to assess the self-reported levels of confidence and knowledge related to non-odontogenic pain among a group of Brazilian endodontists. Methodology A total of one hundred and forty-six endodontists affiliated with the Brazilian Society of Endodontics participated in the survey. The questionnaire, distributed via email or WhatsApp, contained inquiries designed to gauge self-perceived confidence and knowledge concerning non-odontogenic pain. The practitioners were categorized into four groups based on their self-reported familiarity with various orofacial pain types, classified as either sufficient or insufficient, and on their engagement in ongoing educational programs related to orofacial pain. Data were analyzed by Chi-Square Test and Fischer's exact test (p<0.05). Results Overall, self-reported confidence about non-odontogenic pain was high, especially for endodontists who considered their knowledge about orofacial pain sufficient, regardless of whether they had (71.1% - 97.8%) or not (35.7% - 96.4%) been continuously involved in education courses on orofacial pain. In general, self-reported knowledge about non-odontogenic pain was insufficient (0% - 42%), except in the question about how they would act in cases of pain that persists beyond the normal healing time after an endodontic procedure (70.6% - 81.9%). In general, endodontists are confident in their diagnosis and treatment of non-odontogenic pain. Nonetheless, this confidence did not correlate with a commensurate knowledge depth of. Thus, specialization courses in endodontics should highly consider training and qualifying these professionals in the diagnosis of non-odontogenic pain.
ABSTRACT
Objective: this questionnaire aimed to evaluate the approval of a new pictograph system for endodontic diagnosis by undergraduate and graduate students/endodontist instead of a conventional method. Methods: after a presentation to a total of 224 participants explaining the pictograph system, the participants (166 undergraduate students and 58 graduate students/endodontist) received a standardized questionnaire with three questions. The data were analyzed using the mult prop macro basing on Tukey's test for multiple comparison with (P ≤ 0.05). The first question was to define the education level of the participants; the second question about which diagnosis method is preferred; and the third question about the intention of using one of the methods in the future. The questionnaire was realized in May 2019. The response rate was 97.7%. Results: the first question showed that 74.10% and 25.90% were under graduate and graduate students/endodontist respectively. After statistical analysis there was no significant difference between the groups in the second and the third questions. In the second question (71.08% and 62.06%) of undergraduate and graduate student/endodontists respectively preferred the pictograph method over the conventional method. In the third question (60.24% and 51.72%) of undergraduate and graduate student/endodontists respectively showed interest in using the pictograph method in their professional career. Conclusion: the pictograph method in endodontic diagnosis is accepted by the majority of undergraduate and graduate students/endodontists. Training and experience affect the diagnosis making. (AU)
Objetivo: este questionário teve como objetivo avaliara aprovação de um novo sistema de imagem para diagnóstico endodôntico por estudantes de graduação e pós-graduação/endodontista, em vez de um método convencional. Métodos: após uma apresentação a um total de 224 participantes explicando o sistema de pictograma, os participantes (166 estudantes de graduação e 58 de pós graduação/endodontista) receberam um questionário padronizado com três perguntas. Os dados foram analisados usando a macro multi propósito baseada no teste de Tukey para comparação múltipla com (P ≤ 0,05). A primeira pergunta foi definir o nível de escolaridade dos participantes; a segunda pergunta sobre qual método de diagnóstico é preferido; e a terceira pergunta sobre a intenção de usar um dos métodos no futuro. O questionário foi realizado em maio de 2019. A taxa de resposta foi de 97,7%. Resultados: a primeira pergunta mostrou que 74,10% e 25,90% eram estudantes de graduação e pós-graduação / endodontista, respectivamente. Após análise estatística, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos na segunda e na terceira questões. Na segunda questão (71,08% e 62,06%) dos estudantes de graduação e pós-graduação / endodontistas, respectivamente, preferiram o método de pictograma ao método convencional. Na terceira questão (60,24% e 51,72%) dos estudantes de graduação e pós-graduação /endodontistas, respectivamente, demonstraram interesse em utilizar o método de pictograma em sua carreira profissional. Conclusão: o método do pictograma no diagnóstico endodôntico é aceito pela maioria dos estudantes de graduação e pós-graduação / endodontistas. Treinamento e experiência afetam a elaboração do diagnóstico (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Education, Dental, Continuing , EndodonticsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Decision-making by dental and medical experts can be influenced by their biases, interests, and experiences, and academic arguments about controversial issues may additionally be considered indirect experiences capable of affecting decision-making. This study reports on the use of interactive communication devices to evaluate preferences and flexibility in decision-making among dental care providers who attended two distinct academic conferences. METHODS: Two debates were presented by a team of two lecturers at two academic conferences (focusing on periodontology and implant dentistry, respectively) and the audience members of each session were surveyed. Before each lecture, two case modules about the diagnosis and treatment of multirooted molar lesions were provided, and interactive communication devices were used to collect responses about decision-making preferences in treatment planning immediately before and after a debate about treatment strategies. RESULTS: In total, 81 and 84 completed answers from both conferences were obtained for the first and second case modules, respectively. The preferred treatment plan differed significantly according to the focus of the conference, and a tendency emerged for the clinicians participating in each conference to express uniform preferences. However, attending the debates resulted in significant changes in decision-making preferences regardless of the conference focus or the characteristics of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that providing continuing education via debates on controversial issues may be effective in widening conceptual knowledge and reducing biases among experts in the dental and medical fields.