Abstract:
En
|
Text:
En
|
PDF:
En
Abstract Objective: To compare the use of sealants in permanent molars between public and private dentists in Brazil. Material and Methods: This was a cross-sectional and analytical web survey study. The convenience sample consisted of dentists in Brazil who answered a pre-tested online form released via social media between July and October 2021. Descriptive analysis was performed using absolute and relative frequencies (%) and associations using the Chi-square test (p<0.05). Results: Brazilian professionals participated in the study (n=2,244). Comparing the professionals from the public service with those from the private service, the former had a higher positive perception of the use of sealants as a preventive (92.4% vs. 81.1%, p<0.00l) and therapeutic procedure (90.7% vs. 82.4%, p=0.00l), higher percentage of non-invasive (91.7% vs. 83.8%, p<0.00l) and invasive (22.8% vs. 12.0%, p< 0.001) techniques. Professionals from the private service reported more frequently that they did not use sealants than those from the public service (14.0% vs. 4.8%, p<0.00l). Resin sealant (97.7% vs. 94.9%, p=0.0l5) and Flow resin (62.0% vs. 54.3%, p=0.013) were the most used by professionals in the private service. The use of glass ionomer cement was not associated with the type of service (75.1% vs. 77.2%, p=0.172), nor was the use of adhesives (0.6% vs. 1.4%, p=0.195) or resin with Giomer technology (1.9% vs. 2.2%, p=0.856) (p>0.05). Conclusion: The percentage of use of sealants among dentists in Brazil is high, especially among professionals in the public service, and the most used materials were resinous sealants and glass ionomer cement. Objective Methods crosssectional cross sectional pretested pre tested 2021 % (% Chisquare Chi square p<0.05. p005 p p<0.05 . 0 05 (p<0.05) Results n=2,244. n2244 n n=2,244 2 244 (n=2,244) 92.4% 924 92 4 (92.4 vs 811 81 1 81.1% p<0.00l p000l pl 00l l 90.7% 907 90 7 (90.7 824 82 82.4% p=0.00l, p=0.00l , p=0.00l) noninvasive non 91.7% 917 91 (91.7 838 83 8 83.8% 22.8% 228 22 (22.8 120 12 12.0% 0.001 0001 001 techniques 14.0% 140 14 (14.0 48 4.8% p<0.00l. 97.7% 977 97 (97.7 949 94 9 94.9% p=0.0l5 p00l5 0l5 62.0% 620 62 (62.0 543 54 3 54.3% p=0.013 p0013 013 75.1% 751 75 (75.1 772 77 77.2% p=0.172, p0172 p=0.172 172 p=0.172) 0.6% 06 6 (0.6 1.4% p=0.195 p0195 195 1.9% 19 (1.9 2.2% p=0.856 p0856 856 p>0.05. p>0.05 (p>0.05) Conclusion high 202 ( p00 p<0.0 (p<0.05 n224 n=2,24 24 (n=2,244 92.4 (92. 81.1 90.7 (90. 82.4 91.7 (91. 83.8 22.8 (22. 12.0 0.00 000 00 14.0 (14. 4.8 97.7 (97. 94.9 p=0.0l p00l 0l 62.0 (62. 5 54.3 p=0.01 p001 01 75.1 (75. 77.2 p017 p=0.17 17 0.6 (0. 1.4 p=0.19 p019 1.9 (1. 2.2 p=0.85 p085 85 p>0.0 (p>0.05 20 p0 p<0. (p<0.0 n22 n=2,2 (n=2,24 92. (92 81. 90. (90 82. 91. (91 83. 22. (22 12. 0.0 14. (14 4. 97. (97 94. 62. (62 54. p=0.0 75. (75 77. p01 p=0.1 0. (0 1. (1 2. p=0.8 p08 p>0. (p>0.0 p<0 (p<0. n2 n=2, (n=2,2 (9 (2 (6 p=0. (7 p>0 (p>0. (p<0 n=2 (n=2, p=0 p> (p>0 (p< n= (n=2 p= (p> (p (n= (n