BackgroundIt is uncertain whether the range and frequency of Diagnostic Thinking Processes (DTP) and pieces of information (concepts) involved in dental restorative treatment planning are different between students and expert clinicians.MethodsWe video-recorded dental visits with one standardized patient. Clinicians were subsequently interviewed and their cognitive strategies explored using guide questions; interviews were also recorded. Both visit and interview were content-analyzed, following the Gale and Marsden model for clinical decision-making. Limited tests used to contrast data were t, χ2, and Fisher's. Scott's π was used to determine inter-coder reliability.ResultsFifteen dentists and 17 senior dental students participated in visits lasting 32.0 minutes (± 12.9) among experts, and 29.9 ± 7.1 among students; contact time with patient was 26.4 ± 13.9 minutes (experts), and 22.2 ± 7.5 (students). The time elapsed between the first and the last instances of the clinician looking in the mouth was similar between experts and students. Ninety eight types of pieces of information were used in combinations with 12 DTPs. The main differences found in DTP utilization had dentists conducting diagnostic interpretations of findings with sufficient certainty to be considered definitive twice as often as students. Students resorted more often to more general or clarifying enquiry in their search for information than dentists.ConclusionsDifferences in diagnostic strategies and concepts existed within clearly delimited types of cognitive processes; such processes were largely compatible with the analytic and (in particular) non-analytic approaches to clinical decision-making identified in the medical field. Because we were focused on a clinical presentation primarily made up of non-emergency treatment needs, use of other DTPs and concepts might occur when clinicians evaluate emergency treatment needs, complex rehabilitative cases, and/or medically compromised patients.
The purpose of this study is to explore the use of office-based sedation by board-certified pediatric dentists practicing in the United States. Pediatric dentists have traditionally relied upon self-administered sedation techniques to provide office-based sedation. The use of dentist anesthesiologists to provide office-based sedation is an emerging trend. This study examines and compares these two models of office-based sedations. A survey evaluating office-based sedation of diplomates of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry (ABPD) based on gender, age, years in practice, practice types, regions, and years as a diplomate of the ABPD was completed by 494 active members. The results were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Relationships of dentist age, gender, and number of years in practice with the use of intravenous (IV) sedation was completed using two-way contingency tables and Mantel-Haenszel tests for ordered categorical data. Relationships of office-based sedation use and the type of one's practice were examined using Pearson chi-square tests. Of the 1917 surveys e-mailed, 494 completed the survey for a response rate of 26%. Over 70% of board-certified US pediatric dentists use some form of sedation in their offices. Less than 20% administer IV sedation, 20 to 40% use a dentist anesthesiologist, and 60 to 70% would use dentist anesthesiologists if one were available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.