BACKGROUND: Planning the treatment of a compromised tooth is challenging but the choice should refer to evidence-based criteria. The literature proved that patient-related factors influence the treatment plan, but what happens when the patient is a dentist? Aim of the study was to observe whether the dentist goes for the same option suggested to a patient in a hypothetical scenario. METHODS: One hundred volunteers were interviewed singularly in a quiet ambient. Radiographs of 15 compromised teeth were shown and were identified as belonging to a hypothetical patient with non-contributory medical history asking for the best treatment. For each clinical case, the dentist could decide between: extraction (E), endorestorative recovery (R); referral to a specialist (S) to save the tooth. After a 15-minute wash-out, the same radiographs were shown again with the question: if this was your tooth, what would you do? The alternatives could be E or R. Statistical analysis was performed in order to evaluate the discordance between the choice taken for the patient and for the dentist's teeth. RESULTLTS: A constant increase in recovered teeth was observed in group D with the only exception of case 12. Concordance ranged from scarce to substantial, while symmetry showed that, when changing their mind, the dentists recovered their own teeth. CONCLUSIONS: The dentists were more conservative on their teeth: this shows the absence of a coherent decision-making pattern and stresses the need for an improvement in the formation of dental practitioners.
|Titolo:||Treatment planning of damaged teeth : to recover or to extract?|
|Parole Chiave:||decision making; clinical protocols; endodontics; tooth extraction; surgery|
|Settore Scientifico Disciplinare:||Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche|
|Data di pubblicazione:||ott-2017|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI):||10.23736/S0026-4970.17.04036-5|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01 - Articolo su periodico|