Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Tolentino, Pedro Henrique Moreira Paulo
 |
Orientador(a): |
Silva, Rhonan Ferreira da
 |
Banca de defesa: |
Silva, Rhonan Ferreira da,
Prado, Mauro Machado do,
Decúrcio, Daniel de Almeida,
Souza, João Batista de,
Roriz, Virgílio Moreira |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Goiás
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-graduação em Odontologia (FO)
|
Departamento: |
Faculdade de Odontologia - FO (RG)
|
País: |
Brasil
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/8229
|
Resumo: |
The objective of this study was to evaluate if periodontal training and the time and place of formation and the training of professionals in Bioethics and Forensic Dentistry would influence the decision making in relation to indicating the exodontia of periodontally affected teeth and the type of rehabilitation suggested in patients with partial edentulism, identifying the clinical and social criteria that would directly interfere with this choice. For this purpose, a questionnaire was applied to general dental surgeons and periodontal specialists, with questions regarding age, time and training institution, and decision making for four (4) clinical cases illustrated as to the factors of interest for the study. 423 questionnaires were distributed, with a rate of return of 35,46%. Of these, 31.3% were periodontists and 68.7% were general clinical. 82% had less than 15 years of training and 18% had more than 15 years. Regarding the clinical decision for case #1, 42% did not indicate any extraction for the upper arch and 56% had the same decision for the inferior arch. A statistically significant difference was observed between periodontists and general practitioners (p<0.05). In case #2, 57.3% and 92.7% of the participants indicated exodontia of up to 3 teeth for the upper and lower arches, respectively. A statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in relation to the indication for the remnants as a function of the participants' training time. Regarding case #3, only 1 participant, who was periodontist, indicated extraction for 2 teeth from the upper arch. For the lower arch, 48% indicated extraction of up to 3 teeth, and statistically significant differences were observed in relation to the formation time and the number of teeth indicated for extraction (p<0.05). In case #4, 83.3% of the participants indicated exodontia of all remnants. Regarding the type of rehabilitation, the removable partial denture was the most appropriate option for cases #1 and #2 for both arches, with a statistically significant difference between specialists and non-specialists for case #2, the periodontists indicated more frequently prostheses implant-supported (p<0.05). For the lower arch of case #3, rehabilitation with implant-supported prosthesis was the most chosen option (75.3%), with a statistically significant difference between specialists and general practitioners (p<0.05). In case #4, the participants indicated more muco-supported total prosthesis, for upper (89.3%) and lower arch (63.3%), without significant statistical differences (p>0.05). Regarding the clinical and social criteria that guided decision making, the most frequent reason to justify the indication of extraction in all cases was the severity of patients periodontal disease. The results showed that clinical decision making in relation to the proposed cases was influenced by the specialty and the training time of the participants. In general, periodontists and professionals with shorter training periods recommended fewer extractions, and there was a greater tendency among specialists to indicate implant-supported prostheses. The severity of periodontal disease was a more relevant criterion than social issues and the patient's willingness to decide to indicate exodontia. |