Bir Grup Türk Pedodontistin Tanı ve Tedavi Yaklaşımlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bir grup türk pedodontistin tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde ve özel kurumlarda çalışmakta olan 210 pedodontiste kişisel bilgiler ile birlikte tanı ve tedavi planlamaları kapsamında 13 soruluk anket formu e-posta yoluyla gönderilmiştir. Bulgular: Gönderilen 210 anketten 140’ı cevaplandırılmış olup cevaplanma yüzdesi % 70’dir. Çalışmaya katılan pedodontistlerin yaşlarının ortalaması 31.2’dir. Katılımcıların % 16.4’ü öğretim üyesi, % 16.4’ü uzman ve % 67.2 si ise doktora/uzmanlık öğrencisiydi. Katılımcıların tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarını içeren sorulara verdikleri cevaplar her soru için yüzdesel farklılıklara sahiptir. Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın bulguları dahilinde pedodontistlerin tanı ve tedavi yaklaşımlarında farklılıklar görülmektedir. Türk pedodontistlerinin klinik portresini oluşturmak için daha fazla anket çalışmasına ihtiyaç vardır

The Evaluation of Diagnosis and Treatment Approaches of a Group of Turkish Pedodontists

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and treatment approaches of a group of Turkish pedodontists. Methods: 13-question survey which covered diagnostic and treatment planning with personal information was sent by e-mail to 210 Pedodontist working in private clinics and universities in Turkey. Results: 140 out of 210 questionnaires were answered and the response rate was 70%. The average age of the pedodontists participating in the study was 31.2. 16.4 % of the participants were lecturers, 16.4 % were specialists and 67.2% were doctoral / specialist students. The answers given by the participants to the questions including diagnosis and treatment approaches have differences in percentage for each question. Conclusion: Within the findings of this study, differences in the diagnostic and treatment approaches of pedodontists are observed. Further surveys are needed to establish a clinical portrait of Turkish pedodontists.

PDF

___

1. Koch G, Poulsen S, eds. Çocuk Dişhekimliğine Klinik Yaklaşım. 2nd edition. Koch G, Poulsen S. Rotatif Yayınevi. İstanbul. 2012. 3-4.

2. 2. Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Mc Tigue DJ, Field Jr HW, Nowak AJ, eds. Çocuk Diş Hekimliği Bebeklikten Ergenliğe. 4th edition. Pinkham JR, Berg JH. Atlas Kitapçılık. Ankara. 2009. 2-3.

3. 3. McWhorter AG, Townsend JA, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry S. Behavior symposium Workshop A report - current guidelines/revision. Pediatr Dent 2014;36:152-3.

4. 4. Mutluay MS, Mutluay AT. Süt dişlerinde restoratif materyal seçimi ve etkileyen faktörler. Selcuk Dent J 2016;3:151-5.

5. 5. Bawazir OA, Salama FS. Clinical evaluation of root canal obturation methods in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2006;28:39-47.

6. 6. AAPD. Oral Health Policies & Recommendations (The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry). Available at https://www.aapd.org/research/oralhealth-policies--recommendations/. Accessed June 14, 2020.

7. 7. EAPD. Policies and Guidelines. Available at: https://www.eapd.eu/index.php/policies-andguidelines. Accessed June 12, 2020.

8. 8. Varughese RE , Andrews P , Sigal MJ, Azarpazhooh A. An Assessment of Direct Restorative Material Use in Posterior Teeth by American and Canadian Pediatric Dentists: I. Material Choice. Pediatr Dent 2016;38:489-96.

9. 9. Öz E, Kırzıoğlu Z. Mezuniyet sonrasi diş hekimlerinin pedodontik tedavilere yaklaşımları. Balıkesir Saglik Bil Derg 2018;7:23-33.

10.10.O'Connor BM. Contemporary trends in orthodontic practice: a national survey. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:163-70.

11.11.O'Brien KD, Roberts C. An analysis of the effects of place of childhood, undergraduate and postgraduate education upon the regional distribution of specialist orthodontic practitioners. Br Dent J 1991;171:280-2.

12.12.Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract 2002;3:23-39.

13.13.Naqvi A. Oral midazolam in pediatric dentistry. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 1996;13:427-40.

14.14.Hartgraves PM, Primosch RE. An evaluation of oral and nasal midazolam for pediatric dental sedation. ASDC J Dent Child 1994;61:175-81.

15.Epstein JB, Chong S, Le ND. A survey of antibiotic use in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1600-9.

16.16.Ashkenazi M, Ashkenazi S. Judicious use of antibiotics in dental practice. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim 2004;21:27-34.

17.Koch G, Poulsen S, eds. Çocuk Dişhekimliğine Klinik Yaklaşım. 2nd edition. Pedodontik Endodonti.Schröder U. Rotatif Yayınevi. İstanbul. 2012. 156-7.

18.Cvek M, Lundberg M. Histological appearance of pulps after exposure by a crown fracture, partial pulpotomy, and clinical diagnosis of healing. J Endod 1983;9:8-11.

19.Mejare I, Cvek M. Partial pulpotomy in young permanent teeth with deep carious lesions. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9:238-42.

20.Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Qudeimat MA. A prospective clinical study of mineral trioxide aggregate for partial pulpotomy in cariously exposed permanent teeth. J Endod 2006;32:731- 5.

21.Witherspoon DE, Small JC, Harris GZ. Mineral trioxide aggregate pulpatomies: a case series outcomes assessment. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:610-8.

22.El-Meligy OA, Avery DR. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium hydroxide as pulpotomy agents in young permanent teeth (apexogenesis). Pediatr Dent 2006;28:399-404.

23.Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Mc Tigue DJ, Field Jr HW, Nowak AJ, eds. Çocuk Diş Hekimliği Bebeklikten Ergenliğe. 4th edition. Süt Dişlenme Döneminde Restoratif Diş Hekimliği. Waggoner WF. Atlas Kitapçılık. Ankara. 2009. 361-2.

24.DeSchepper EJ, Berr EA, 3rd, Cailleteau JG, Tate WH. A comparative study of fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Int 1991;22:215-9.

25.Karantakis P, Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M, Theodoridou-Pahini S, Papadogiannis Y. Fluoride release from three glass ionomers, a compomer, and a composite resin in water, artificial saliva, and lactic acid. Oper Dent 2000;25:20-5.

26.Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpatomies restored with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:24-7.

27.Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Success Rate of Calcium Hydroxide Pulpotomy in Primary Molars Restored With Amalgam and Stainless Steel Crowns. Br Dent J 2010;8;408-9.

28.Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalga. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:212-6.

29.Walia T, Salami AA, Bashiri R, Hamoodi OM, Rashid F. A Randomised Controlled Trial of Three Aesthetic Full-Coronal Restorations in Primary Maxillary Teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2014;15:113-8.

30.Grosso FC. Primary anterior strip crowns: a new approach. J Pedod 1987;11:182-6.

31.Khandewal D, Ballal NV, Saraswathi MV. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of 2 electronic Apex locators with conventional radiography: an ex vivo study. J Endod 2015;41:201-4.

32. Ravanshad S, Adl A, Anvar J. Effect of working length measurement by electronic apex locator or radiography on the adequacy of final working length: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2010;36:1753-6.

33.Ahmed HMA. Anatomical Challenges, Electronic Working Length Determination and Current Developments in Root Canal Preparation of Primary Molar Teeth. Int Endod J 2013 ;46:1011-22.

34.Koch G, Poulsen S, eds. Çocuk Dişhekimliğine Klinik Yaklaşım. 2nd edition. Oklüzal Gelişim, Koruyucu ve İnterseptif Ortodonti. Karol J, Mohlin B. Rotatif Yayınevi. İstanbul. 2012. 223-4