Current Practices in the Management and Treatment of Avulsed Teeth: A Survey of Dentists in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate current trends in the management and treatment of avulsed permanent teeth by dental practitioners in Manitoba and to compare these practices to current guidelines outlined by the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT).Materials and Methods: A two-part questionnaire was distributed to members of the Manitoba Dental Association.The purpose of the first part of the questionnaire was to collect personal information.The second part of the questionnaire consisted of questions regarding the management and treatment of avulsed teeth based on the IADT guidelines.Responses from 120 participants were evaluated.Results: 103 (85.83%) dentists surveyed were general dentists, while 17 (14.17%)were specialists.The number of avulsions treated by the practitioners surveyed ranged from zero to greater than ten cases.The responses were evaluated for adherence with the current IADT guidelines.Protocols in which the majority of responses were in agreement with IADT guidelines were: 1) storage time; 2) over-thephone recommendation to parents of a child immediately following avulsion; 3) intracanal medicament; 4) type of splint; 5) splinting time for avulsion without alveolar fracture; 6) most critical factors for avulsion management; 7) modifications for open versus closed apex; 8) management of avulsed primary teeth; and 9) antibiotic of choice for pediatric patients.Protocols in which a high number of responses were not in agreement with IADT guidelines were: 1) storage medium; 2) splinting time for avulsion with alveolar fracture; and 3) antibiotic of choice for adult patients.Non-adherence to the current IADT guidelines was evident in the latter three protocols.The responses in Avulsed(Teeth,(3( ( these three focus areas were further analyzed to distinguish level of knowledge of general dentists versus specialists.It was found that adherence to the IADT guidelines by those respondents who identified as specialists surpassed that of those who identified as general dentists.The study found that current practices by Manitoba dentists regarding the management and treatment of avulsions varies.In general, those respondents identifying as specialists showed greater knowledge and adherence to the IADT guidelines compared to those respondents identifying as general dentists.In nine of the 12 protocols assessed, the majority of participants' responses were in agreement with current IADT guidelines, whereas the majority of participants' responses were not in agreement with the other three.Thus, insufficient knowledge of the IADT exists in these focus areas.Continuing education and specialization were both found to be positively correlated with increased adherence to IADT guidelines.Conclusion: The study highlighted the need for continuing education for dentists in Manitoba to improve the management and treatment of avulsed teeth.Three areas of insufficient knowledge as identified by the study were: 1) storage medium; 2) splinting time for avulsion with alveolar fracture; and 3) antibiotic of choice for adult patients.Compared to general dentists, specialists demonstrated improved knowledge of currently accepted guidelines for the treatment and management of avulsed teeth.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".