Aim: The aim of the study was to construct the Trust in Nurse Scale on the basis of the standardized Trust in Physician Scale by Anderson and Dedrick.
Methods: The study included a group of 1,200 people selected at random, 600 each from surgical and medical treatment wards. Patients did not report any problems with understanding the statements on the scale.
Results: The internal accuracy scores were excellent, all Cronbach's a values were well above 0.70. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient values were highly statistically significant (p <0.001), and correlation strength was very high (for most items rs > 0.90).
Conclusion: We suggest that The Trust in Nurse Scale, developed on the basis of the standardized Trust in Physician Scale by Anderson and Dedrick, can be used in studies on patient satisfaction with nursing care.
METHODS: Using a validated questionnaire, 6248 participants were asked to rate their willingness to perform bystander chest compression with mouth-to-mouth ventilation and chest compression-only CPR. Their past familial experiences of receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and medical help in various cardiac arrest and nonfatal cardiac events were also recorded.
RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn's pairwise comparisons showed that the following were significantly more willing to perform CPR with mouth-to-mouth ventilation: familial experience of "nonfatal cardiac events" (mean rank = 447) vs "out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with no CPR" (mean rank = 177), U = 35442.5, z = -2.055, p = 0.04; "in-hospital cardiac arrest and successful CPR" (mean rank = 2955.79) vs "none of these experiences" (mean rank = 2468.38), U = 111903, z = -2.60, p = 0.01; and "in-hospital cardiac arrest with successful CPR" (mean rank = 133.45) vs "out-of-hospital arrest with no CPR" (mean rank = 112.36), U = 4135.5, z = -2.06, p = 0.04. For compression-only CPR, Kruskal-Wallis test with multiple runs of Mann-Whitney U tests showed that "nonfatal cardiac events" group was statistically higher than the group with "none of these experiences" (mean rank = 3061.43 vs 2859.91), U = 1194658, z = -2.588, p = 0.01. The groups of "in-hospital cardiac arrest with successful CPR" and "in-hospital cardiac arrest with transient return of spontaneous circulation" were the most willing groups to perform compression-only CPR.
CONCLUSION: Prior familial experiences of receiving CPR and medical help, particularly among those with successful outcomes in a hospital setting, seem to increase the willingness to perform bystander CPR.
Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro study, a total of 48 single-rooted permanent human teeth were decoronated, and the roots were treated endodontically. Following post space preparation, the sample was divided into four groups (n= 12 each) based on the types of post and cement. Two different types of post [GC everStick®POST (ES) and Parapost® Fiber LuxTM (PF)], and two different types of cement [G-CEMTM (G), and RelyXTM Unicem (R)] were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. All roots were sectioned at the coronal and middle thirds with a thickness of 3±0.1mm. The Push-out bond strength (PBS) test was performed using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/ min. The bond strength values were recorded, and the data were analyzed using the SPSS program. Apart from descriptive statistics, three-way ANOVA was used for the interaction of the independent variables (post, cement, and root level). For differences between the groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses.
Results: Push-out bond strength of samples at the middle level (11.38±10.31 MPa), with PF posts (11.18±9.98 MPa), and of those luted with RelyXTM Unicem cement (13.26±8.73 MPa) was higher than that of their counterparts. The PBS means of RelyXTM Unicem cement at both root levels were much higher than PBS means of G-CEMTM cement. Three-way ANOVA test revealed a significant effect for each variable with a higher effect of cement (Sum of Squares= 1310.690; P< 0.001). No significant difference (P= 0.153) was found between the coronal and middle parts and between ES and PF posts (P= 0.058). However, a highly significant difference (P< 0.001) was found between RelyXTM Unicem and G-CEMTM cements.
Conclusion: The type of cement had a significant effect on push-out bond strength with RelyXTM Unicem which had higher values than G-CEMTM. However, the type of post and root level had no significant effect on PBS, although Parapost® Fiber LuxTM and middle root level had higher values than their counterparts.
Materials and Methods: Sixty freshly extracted maxillary incisors teeth collected in saline. Access cavity prepared and canals were made free of bacterial and pulp. The teeth were mounted on the bacteria collecting apparatus. Root canals were contaminated with the Fusobacterium Nucleatum (ATCC25586) and dried at 37°C for 24 h. In Group 1 (Control group): No instrumentation was done and biomechanical preparation done in all other groups with Group 2: Hand K-files, Group 3: Protaper gold, Group 4: K3XF, Group 5: Edge taper platinum, and Group 6: Hyflex CM rotary file systems. Then, the extrude was collected, and it is incubated in Mueller-Hinton agar for 24 h and the number of colony forming units were counted and statistical comparison was done using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: Hand K-files extruded more bacteria when compared to other four rotary systems, K3XF file system extruded least number of bacteria.
Conclusion: All instrumentation techniques extruded intracanal bacteria apically. However, engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments extruded less bacteria than the manual technique. The K3XF rotary file system comparatively extruded less bacteria than other rotary file systems.
DESIGN: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P