Gilbert Gregg H, Riley Joseph L, Eleazer Paul D, Benjamin Paul L, Funkhouser Ellen
Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Department of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
BMJ Open. 2015 Dec 9;5(12):e009779. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009779.
Use of a rubber dam during root canal treatment is considered the standard of care because it enhances patient safety and optimises the odds of successful treatment. Nonetheless, not all dentists use a rubber dam, creating disconnect between presumed standard of care and what is actually done in clinical practice. Little is known about dentists' attitudes towards use of the rubber dam in their practices. The objectives were to: (1) quantify these attitudes and (2) test the hypothesis that specific attitudes are significantly associated with rubber dam use.
National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (NationalDentalPBRN.org).
1490 network dentists.
Dentists completed a questionnaire about their attitudes towards rubber dam use during root canal treatment. Three attitude scales comprised 33 items that used a 5-point ordinal scale to measure beliefs about effectiveness, inconvenience, ease of placement, comparison to other isolation techniques and patient factors. Factor analysis, cluster analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysed the relationship between attitudes and rubber dam use.
All items had responses at each point on the 5-point scale, with an overall pattern of substantial variation across dentists. Five attitudinal factors (rubber dam effectiveness; inconvenient/time-consuming; ease of placement; effectiveness compared to Isolite; patient factors) and 4 clusters of practitioners were identified. Each factor and cluster was independently and strongly associated with rubber dam use.
General dentists have substantial variation in attitudes about rubber dam use. Beliefs that rubber dam use is not effective, inconvenient, time-consuming, not easy to place or affected by patient factors, were independently and significantly associated with lower rubber dam use. These attitudes explain why there is substantial discordance between presumed standard of care and actual practice.
在根管治疗过程中使用橡皮障被视为治疗的标准规范,因为它能提高患者安全性并优化成功治疗的几率。然而,并非所有牙医都使用橡皮障,这导致了假定的治疗标准与临床实际操作之间存在脱节。对于牙医在其临床实践中使用橡皮障的态度,我们知之甚少。本研究的目的是:(1)量化这些态度;(2)检验特定态度与橡皮障使用之间存在显著关联的假设。
基于全国牙科实践的研究网络(NationalDentalPBRN.org)。
1490名网络牙医。
牙医完成了一份关于他们在根管治疗期间对使用橡皮障态度的问卷。三个态度量表包含33个项目,采用5分制顺序量表来衡量对橡皮障有效性、不便性、放置难易程度、与其他隔离技术的比较以及患者因素等方面的看法。通过因子分析、聚类分析和多变量逻辑回归分析态度与橡皮障使用之间的关系。
所有项目在5分制量表的每个分值上都有相应的回答,不同牙医之间总体呈现出较大的差异。识别出了五个态度因子(橡皮障有效性;不便/耗时;放置容易程度;与Isolite相比的有效性;患者因素)以及四类从业者群体。每个因子和群体都与橡皮障的使用独立且紧密相关。
普通牙医对使用橡皮障的态度存在很大差异。认为橡皮障使用无效、不便、耗时、不易放置或受患者因素影响的观点,与较低的橡皮障使用率独立且显著相关。这些态度解释了为什么在假定的治疗标准与实际临床操作之间存在很大差异。