Articaine: dental practitioner use, basis of perception and evidence-based dentistry — a cross-sectional study
Martin, Erica, Lee, Andrew, and Jennings, Ernest (2022) Articaine: dental practitioner use, basis of perception and evidence-based dentistry — a cross-sectional study. British Dental Journal Open, 8. 20.
|
PDF (Published Version)
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (498kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background Limited data exist on dental practitioner use and perceptions of articaine. This study is a cross-sectional survey of dental practitioners from January, 2021 to ascertain the extent of their use of the dental local anaesthetic, articaine, the basis of their perceptions about articaine and whether current practices are in line with recent evidence regarding articaine safety and efficacy.
Method An anonymous survey was designed using the SAP Qualtrics Core XM software platform and a survey link was disseminated from December 2020 to January 2021 via social media. The survey was designed as a five minute, anonymous, online questionnaire including a plain language information sheet, request for participant consent and 14 questions. Data were entered onto a Microsoft™ Excel spreadsheet and analysed qualitatively, isolating the answers into recurrent themes.
Results Sixty percent of the surveyed dental practitioner used articaine as their preferred dental anaesthetic. Twenty-three percent of the dental practitioner surveyed used articaine for all of their dental procedures including inferior alveolar nerve blocks, while 40% of respondents used articaine for all their dental procedures except inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The predominant basis of dental practitioner uses and perception of articaine were their countries dental guidelines.
Conclusion Despite the latest findings that articaine is as safe and more efficacious as lidocaine for all routine dental treatment, 40% of survey respondents avoided articaine use for inferior alveolar blocks. Our study recognises a discrepancy between reported clinical practice and current research evidence. Further research and clarifications are needed to achieve ubiquitous practice of evidence-based dentistry.
| Item ID: | 75535 |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Article (Research - C1) |
| ISSN: | 2056-807X |
| Related URLs: | |
| Copyright Information: | Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
| Date Deposited: | 26 Jul 2022 22:38 |
| FoR Codes: | 32 BIOMEDICAL AND CLINICAL SCIENCES > 3203 Dentistry > 320303 Dental therapeutics, pharmacology and toxicology @ 70% 32 BIOMEDICAL AND CLINICAL SCIENCES > 3209 Neurosciences > 320906 Peripheral nervous system @ 15% 32 BIOMEDICAL AND CLINICAL SCIENCES > 3203 Dentistry > 320399 Dentistry not elsewhere classified @ 15% |
| SEO Codes: | 20 HEALTH > 2001 Clinical health > 200102 Efficacy of medications @ 40% 20 HEALTH > 2001 Clinical health > 200103 Human pain management @ 60% |
| Downloads: |
Total: 600 Last 12 Months: 91 |
| More Statistics |
Actions (Repository Staff Only)
 |
Item Control Page |