ArticleCureus2024
The Use and Reprocessing of Endodontic Files in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to assess the awareness, implementation, and compliance with the infection control policy recommended by the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH) for the use and reprocessing of endodontic files and to examine the association between compliance and gender, experience, clinical ranks, and workplace sector. Methods This was a cross-sectional study conducted using a validated self-administered electronic questionnaire created and distributed to dentists who perform endodontic treatment in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected between June and July 2023. Descriptive statistics were reported as counts and percentages. Comparisons among the demographic groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Results A total of 402 dentists completed the survey. The results showed that 76.1% (n=306) of respondents claimed that they were aware of the infection control policy recommended by the Saudi MOH for the use and reprocessing of endodontic files in dental clinics. Only 13.2% (n=53) of dentists used single-use endodontic files, and 36.6% (n=147) did not use an endodontic box in their dental clinics. The most commonly reported method of tracing the number of uses of endodontic files was to write the ID of the patient or the number of uses on the sterilization pouch as reported by 37.6% of participants (n=151). The average compliance score percentage was 63.5 ± 16.7. Most of the respondents showed moderate to high levels of compliance (51.7% (n=208) and 42.0% (n=169) of dentists, respectively). Dentists with less than 5 years of experience showed significantly less compliance than dentists with more than 10 years of experience (p = 0.005). Gender, clinical rank, and workplace sector were not significantly associated with the extent of adhering to the evaluated infection control policy. Conclusions Our findings indicate a relatively high level of compliance with the Saudi MOH policy of using and reprocessing endodontic files. However, critical measures such as the single-use of endodontic files, sterilizing new endodontic files, and using the sterilized endodontic box for each patient need improvement. Hence, this study recommends enhancing awareness through continuous education and training.
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.