| Title |
Periodontal screening and referral behaviour of general dental practitioners in Flanders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-017-2212-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Meers, C. Dekeyser, C. Favril, W. Teughels, M. Quirynen, Isabelle Laleman |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to investigate the screening and referral behaviour of Flemish dentists concerning periodontitis and more specific, the use of the Dutch Periodontal Screening Index (DPSI). An online questionnaire was electronically distributed through the different professional dental societies. It consisted of two parts: the first aimed at describing the profile of the dentist. The second part inquired the screening method, when this was applied, periodontal risk factors and referral behaviour. One thousand fifty dentists attended to the questionnaire. One hundred fifty-nine questionnaires were excluded since they did not match the target audience. Sixty-four percent of Flemish dentists used DPSI as a periodontal screening method, 28% screened based on probing pocket depth, 4% used solely radiographs and 4% had no screening method at all. The usage of DPSI is influenced by the year of graduation: the longer the dentists were graduated, the less they used DPSI. No influence of sex, education centre and location was found. Referral behaviour is influenced by different patient- and dentist-related factors. Regarding the screening behaviour, there seems a consensus among Flemish dentists that a periodontal probe should be used. For referral, there is no consensus about if and when to refer to a specialist. It is encouraging that 92% of the Flemish general dental practitioners use a probe when screening for periodontitis. However, DPSI is mainly used by younger dentists. An effort should be made to encourage all dentists to use this, so that in every patient, periodontitis can be detected timely, securing the best treatment outcome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#14,703,203
of 23,549,388 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#558
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,250
of 318,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,549,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.