Factors that influence parental satisfaction with SDF treatment in healthy children and those with special healthcare needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is used as a caries management agent for the arrest of dentinal caries lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction with SDF treatment provided at a university pediatric dentistry clinic and to identify factors that may contribute to parental dissatisfaction. Methods We obtained retrospective data of children who received SDF treatment at our clinic from 1 February 2019 to 28 February 2021. Parents were contacted by phone to participate in a survey that evaluated their satisfaction with the treatment. Satisfaction was evaluated as a function of medical status, ease of treatment, outcome of SDF treatment, esthetics, and understanding of treatment goals and side effects using contingency tables and chi-square statistics. Results From 209 children who received SDF treatment, we were able to contact 91 parents by telephone, and 79 agreed to participate. Special healthcare needs (SHCN) patients were overrepresented in our sample, comprising 22.3% of all treated and 36.7% of participants. More than 90% were satisfied with the treatment, would do it again and would recommend it to others. Among the 49 children who complained of pain, SDF treatment resolved 82% of these complaints. In the subsample with follow-up in our clinic, approximately half of the treated teeth later received restorative treatment or were extracted, and the other half presented without further treatment. Some children received further treatment elsewhere. Parental dissatisfaction was related to staining of the anterior teeth ( p = 0.04), the need for further treatment ( p = 0.02) and a lesser understanding of side effects ( p = 0.002). Conclusion Most parents were satisfied with SDF therapy as a dental treatment choice due to its easy application and desensitizing effects. Our findings indicate that parental understanding of the interim nature of the treatment and staining of the lesions is important to achieve parental satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".