METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from nine fresh, unclaimed bodies that were due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP lesions using film and digital PR with a centred view (FP and DP groups); film and digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (FPS and DPS groups). All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was carried out.

RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.16, 0.37, 0.27 and 0.38 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Both FP and FPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 1.0, whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive values of 0.99. Negative predictive value was 0.36, 0.43, 0.39 and 0.44 for FP, FPS, DP and DPS, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.562 (FP), 0.629 (DP), 0.685 (FPS), 0.6880 (DPS).

METHODS: A random convenient sampling methodology was employed for sample selection. A pre-tested 11-item questionnaire was validated on the dental officers. The survey was distributed to 182 GDPs attending the annual Malaysian Dental Association conference in January 2010. The data obtained was statistically analyzed using descriptive analysis and logistic regression was employed to predict the probability of achieving high scores.

RESULTS: A total of 182 general dental practitioners participated in the study, with the majority being female (n=153, 75%). The place of practice significantly affected the knowledge score. In the group that scored more than 80 points (n=84, 46%), 76% of them worked with government hospitals. Age, work duration and number of traumatised teeth previously treated had no significant effect. The odds ratio for place of practice indicates that respondents who work in government hospitals are 3.6 times more likely to score more than 80 points compared to those who worked in private clinics (OR=3.615, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION: The knowledge level on the management of avulsed tooth among general dental practitioners in Malaysia needs to be improved. Strategies in improvement of the Malaysian dental educational system, continuous dental educational activities and utilisation of guidelines on trauma management should be recommended to increase the knowledge level of avulsed tooth management to ensure good treatment outcomes.

METHODOLOGY: Jaw sections containing 67 teeth (86 roots) were collected from unclaimed bodies due for cremation. Imaging was carried out to detect AP by digital PR with a central view (DP group), digital PR combining central with 10˚ mesially and distally angled (parallax) views (DPS group) and CBCT scans. All specimens underwent histopathological examination to confirm the diagnosis of AP. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PR and CBCT were analysed using rater mean (n = 5). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out.

RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.27, 0.38 and 0.89 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. CBCT had specificity and positive predictive value of 1.0 whilst DP and DPS had specificity and positive predictive value of 0.99. The negative predictive value was 0.39, 0.44 and 0.81 for DP, DPS and CBCT scans, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) for the various imaging methods was 0.629 (DP), 0.688 (DPS), and 0.943 (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Master of Science postgraduate students in endodontics, prosthodontics, periodontics, oral surgery and implantology participated in a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The dental specialties were further categorised into restorative and surgical dentistry. A multiple-choice questionnaire with three clinical cases was distributed to the students. Data were analysed for trends using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: There was a 44% response rate; the majority of respondents were from restorative dentistry specialties. Cases 1 and 2 were rated as moderate to high difficulty, and Case 3 was predominantly rated as high difficulty with procedure predictability being the main factor affecting their clinical decision-making in three cases. Endodontic retreatment was selected as the preferred treatment in Cases 1 and 2 and periradicular surgery in Case 3. The students were fairly confident in managing Cases 1 and 2, but not in Case 3. Referral patterns were consistent in Cases 1 and 2 with endodontists being the first choice of referral except for Case 3 where 48% preferred to refer to oral surgeons and 35% choosing endodontists. Some indication of differences between specialties were noted throughout. Years in practice appeared to be related to the importance of predictability in Case 3 only.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four DUs were shown 15 clinical case scenarios and asked to decide on treatment plans based on 4 treatment options. The most appropriate treatment plan had been decided by a consensus panel of experienced dentists. DUs then underwent DPI training using an online video. In a post-DPI-training test, DUs were shown the same clinical case scenarios and asked to assign the best treatment option. After 6 weeks, DUs were retested to assess their knowledge retention. In all 3 tests, DUs completed the confidence level scale questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test and the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test with the level of significance set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS: DPI training significantly improved the mean scores of the DUs from 7.53 in the pre-DPI-training test to 9.01 in the post-DPI-training test (p < 0.001). After 6 weeks, the mean scores decreased marginally to 8.87 in the retention test (p = 0.563). DPI training increased their confidence level from 5.68 pre-DPI training to 7.09 post-DPI training.