ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2021
Knowledge and perception of dental practitioners regarding the use of devitalizing agents.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulpal pain is amongst the most severe pains experienced by humans. Various chemical agents are used routinely to devitalize the severely inflamed pulpal tissue. Most of these agents are harmful and have detrimental effects. This questionnaire-based study evaluated the awareness and perception of dental practitioners regarding the use of devitalizing agents during endodontic procedures, and various alternatives to minimize the use of these agents.
methodsAn open questionnaire was distributed to a total of 250 dental practitioners. It carried detailed information about the most common devitalizing agent used, the purpose of use, method, and duration of application, recommendations, complications encountered, awareness of complications, and various alternatives. The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 17.0 (IBM Statistics, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Descriptive statistics were drawn with respective percentages to have a comparative overview.
results209 responses to 250 questionnaires circulated gave a response rate of 83.6%. Amongst them, 63.15% of dentists were using devitalizing agents. The most widely and frequently used devitalizing agent was Devitec (PD Swiss, Vevey, Switzerland) (36.3%), followed by Caustinerf forte (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses, France) (29.5%). A total of 32.9% dentists were aware of the recommendations, and 66.02% were aware of the complications of devitalizing agents; 16.26% of dental practitioners encountered complications due to the use of devitalizing agents. The dentists listed the alternate methods regarding the use of pulp devitalizing agents.
conclusionAlthough most of the dentists were aware of the harmful effects and few encountered complications with the use of devitalizers, they continued to use these agents because of the lack of an effective alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.