RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The use of jargon has become very common in the healthcare field, especially in medical/dental records. Although the use of standard medical jargon can be seen as professional, efficient shorthand, a lack of awareness regarding the standard medical abbreviations and incessant and overzealous use of slang among the healthcare professionals can act as a barrier to effective communication and understanding among patients and peers. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptance and use of jargon in case history taking among clinical dental students and dental teaching faculty members of dental colleges in Ernakulam and Idukki districts of Kerala. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was carried out, consisting of 15 questions, to assess the objectives of the study. The study was conducted among clinical dental undergraduate students, house surgeons, postgraduate students and teaching faculty members of five dental colleges in Ernakulam and Idukki districts, Kerala. The results were expressed as a number and percentage of response for each question and Chi-squared test was used for inferential statistical analysis. RESULTS: All the 549 respondents used jargon in case history taking. Approximately 22.4% of the respondents admitted that they always used jargon and 55.8% admitted of using jargon only when there was a lack of time. The majority of the respondents (71.4%) learned the jargon from their colleagues. Approximately 50% of the respondents admitted use of jargon in a history section and about 32% of the respondents in all the sections of case history taking. Approximately 74% were of the opinion that abbreviations should be permitted in case history taking. CONCLUSION: This study showed widespread use of jargon/abbreviations in case history taking among the respondents. There is a lack of knowledge regarding standard medical abbreviations. Although the majority of the respondents were comfortable with the use of jargon, the majority of the postgraduates and faculty members felt the use of jargon should be stopped.
RESUMO
AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of different endodontic irrigants in the removal of smear layer through scanning electron microscopic image analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present in vitro study was carried out on 45 single-rooted extracted human mandibular premolar teeth with single canal and complete root formation. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups with 15 teeth in each group. Group I samples were irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic (EDTA) irrigation, Group II with 7% maleic acid irrigation, and Group III with 2% chlorhexidine irrigation. Scanning electron microscope evaluation was done for the assessment of smear layer removal in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Comparison of the smear layer removal between the three different groups was done by Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Mann-Whitney U test for comparing individual groups. A P value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was seen between the two test groups (17% EDTA vs. 7% maleic acid and 17% EDTA vs. 2% chlorhexidine) in smear layer removal at coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. The most efficient smear layer removal was seen in Group I with 17% EDTA irrigation compared with other groups (P < 0.05) and the least by 2% chlorhexidine. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that 17% EDTA efficiently removes the smear layer from root canal walls.
