ArticleBDJ open2024
Attitude and performance in controlling dust particles from dental prosthesis and appliance adjustment: a survey of dentists and dental assistants.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. 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, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the attitude and practices of dentists and dental assistants in managing dust particles generated during dental prostheses or appliances grinding and polishing. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected from 207 dentists and 125 dental assistants through an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included adjusted prosthesis types, self-protective methods, types and frequency of protective device use, and reasons for non-frequent use.
resultsProtective grinding devices, including dust protective boxes and mounted plastic sheets, were commonly used for substantial acrylic resin adjustments, while air blowing was preferred for minor adjustments. Post-COVID-19, there was a 3-fold increase in the use of protective grinding devices among dentists and a 1.3-fold increase among dental assistants. During try-in procedures, dentists commonly rinsed prostheses with water rather than using disinfectants. Non-frequent users adopted self-protection methods, such as face shields and air filters. Surgical drapes and high-volume evacuators were used for patient's protection.
conclusionDespite an increased tendency of the use of protective grinding devices following COVID-19, a significant number still report infrequent use. Identified protective devices in this study have drawbacks not fully meeting dentists' expectations. Invention of a more user-friendly device is necessary to ensure regular use, preventing potential toxicity from dust particles.
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.