Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, VSPM's Dental College & Research Center, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College & Hospital, Visnagar, Gujarat, India.
Dent Traumatol. 2021 Dec;37(6):779-785. doi: 10.1111/edt.12699. Epub 2021 Jun 29.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Reattachment of a tooth fragment is a viable alternative to restore a fractured tooth. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, awareness and perception of dental practitioners towards tooth fragment reattachment procedures.
The cross-sectional study was conducted during 2019 and comprised dental practitioners working as general dentists or dental specialists. The subjects were asked to fill out a self-administered questionnaire. Questions related to knowledge and practice regarding fragment reattachment procedures were asked, and the responses were recorded. SPSS version 20.0 and the chi-square test were selected as the statistical tools for data analysis with significance level established at p < .05.
Eight hundred and fifty-seven subjects participated in the study. Of them, 404 (47%) were general dentists and 453 (53%) were specialist dentists. Out of the 857 subjects, 231 (27%) had clinical experience of less than 5 years, 268 (31.3%) between 5 and 10 years, 190 (22%) between 10 and 20 years and 168 (19.6%) had experience of over 20 years. Of the 857 subjects, 673 (78.5%) had some knowledge about the reattachment procedure and 292 (34.1%) had performed reattachment in clinical practice. The most common storage medium used for the fractured fragment was saline. The bonding material used for reattachment was lightcured composite resin. A subsequent fracture of the reattached fragment was encountered by more than 62% of the subjects.
Lack of availability of the fragment and lack of clinical training were the major reasons for clinicians not performing the procedure routinely. The attachment procedure was most often performed by both general dentists and specialist dentists with 5-10 years of clinical experience. Furthermore, the majority of the participants did not have any familiarity with the concept of biological restorations. Cross contamination was a major clinical concern for the limited clinical application of biological restorations.
背景/目的：牙体碎片的再附着是修复折裂牙的可行方法。本研究的目的是评估口腔医生对牙体碎片再附着程序的知识、意识和看法。
这项横断面研究于 2019 年进行，包括作为全科牙医或口腔专科医生工作的牙医。要求研究对象填写一份自填式问卷。问卷中询问了有关碎片再附着程序的知识和实践相关的问题，并记录了答案。选择 SPSS 版本 20.0 和卡方检验作为数据分析的统计工具，显著性水平设定为 p<.05。
857 名研究对象参与了研究。其中，404 名（47%）为全科牙医，453 名（53%）为专科牙医。在 857 名研究对象中，231 名（27%）有不到 5 年的临床经验，268 名（31.3%）有 5-10 年的临床经验，190 名（22%）有 10-20 年的临床经验，168 名（19.6%）有超过 20 年的临床经验。857 名研究对象中，673 名（78.5%）对再附着程序有一定的了解，292 名（34.1%）在临床实践中进行了再附着。用于储存折断碎片最常见的储存介质是生理盐水。用于再附着的粘结材料是光固化复合树脂。超过 62%的研究对象遇到过再附着碎片的后续骨折。
缺乏碎片和缺乏临床培训是医生不常规进行该程序的主要原因。再附着程序最常由全科牙医和专科牙医进行，他们有 5-10 年的临床经验。此外，大多数参与者对生物修复的概念并不熟悉。由于生物修复的临床应用有限，交叉污染是一个主要的临床关注点。
