ArticleInternational journal of dental hygiene2026
General Dental Practitioners' and Dental Hygienists' Perspectives on the Dutch Guideline for Periodontal Screening, Diagnostics, and Treatment in General Practice.
Article in International journal of dental hygiene, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn January 2021, the guideline 'Periodontal Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment in General Practice' was introduced as a successor to the 'Perio Protocol'. Simultaneously, the screenings tool 'Dutch Periodontal Screening Index' (DPSI) was replaced by the 'Periodic Periodontal Screening' (PPS). The experiences of general dental practitioners (GDPs) and dental hygienists (DHs) with the new guideline were evaluated in the autumn of 2022, with a focus on the PPS and comparisons to the 'Perio Protocol.' The evaluation further aimed to assess how the new guideline contributes to more active involvement of patients in the treatment of periodontal diseases and to identify differences between GDPs and DHs regarding their experiences with the new guideline.
methodsRandom groups of 1000 GDPs and 400 DHs were invited to complete an online questionnaire on this topic: 125 (12.5%) GDPs and 102 (25.5%) DHs responded.
resultsBy the end of 2022, a large majority of both GDPs and DHs were using the PPS. Both professional groups indicated that they were satisfied with the new guideline. DHs used the PPS in more cases than GDPs and were also more often satisfied with the new guideline.
conclusionThe new guideline and screening tool were widely adopted and effectively utilized. Both GDPs and DHs reported satisfaction with the guideline, with DHs being slightly more positive. The guideline's clarity, flexibility, and ease of use were valued, contributing to its successful implementation. Additionally, GDPs and DHs considered the PPS an improvement over the DPSI, particularly in engaging patients in periodontal care.
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.