OBJECTIVES Social media are a fundamental part of modern society: at a professional level, they allow clinicians to share and comment cases, scientific literature and protocols. This however might allow for erroneous techniques, wrong decisional criteria and unfit indications produced by untrust-worthy sources to gain popularity. The objective of this study is to compare the literature’s indication regarding restorative options for damaged vital and endodontically treated teeth (direct, inlay, onlay, overlay) with indications shared by dental professionals on Facebook. In particular, the aim is to assess differences or similarities between the responses of dental clinicians and the scientific literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two questionnaires were formulated, in Italian and in English, each containing six questions, with three possible answers and only one correct. The questionnaires were then published on different dentistry Facebook groups, both Italian and international. The participants were asked in which university they graduated, and the questionnaires involved topics such as indications for direct or indirect restoration of a vital or root-canal treated tooth, which materials to use for the fabrication of such restorations and which materials to use for indirect restorations’ adhesive cementation. For both questionnaires, a statistical analysis was conducted, firstly general, in which the total number and percentage of answers for each question and the relative means and standard deviations; then an analysis was conducted to see how the number of correct answers changed according to the university of graduation. RESULTS After six months, 134 participants answered to the Italian version of the questionnaire, while only 19 did for the English version. Comparing the answers collected from the Italian questionnaires with what is suggested by the literature showed that, in almost every question, the majority of the participants indicated the correct answer. In the English questionnaire, however, most participants indicated correct answers supported by literature in only two questions out of six. It is important to note that the international questionnaire had fewer participants, which may have influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS The spread of social networks in the conservative dentistry field is, for the most part, facilitating the spread of correct and scientifically proven dental knowledge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The purpose of this article is to observe and emphasize the influence that social media, which have taken over the world of communication, are having in s p r e a d i n g c o r r e c t d e n t a l knowledge, regarding the indications proposed by the literature on when and how to perform an indirect partial restoration in posterior teeth. In everyday clinical practice, misinformation shared through social media can be dangerous for both uninformed patients which seek information through these platforms and inexperienced professionals: with the limitations of our results, it seems, however, that correct and evidence-based knowledge is being shared on the most numerous dental professionals-only groups on social networks.
Direct and indirect restorations in posterior sectors: literature vs social media
Carli E.
;Derchi G.;Barone A.
;Lardani L.
2023-01-01
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Social media are a fundamental part of modern society: at a professional level, they allow clinicians to share and comment cases, scientific literature and protocols. This however might allow for erroneous techniques, wrong decisional criteria and unfit indications produced by untrust-worthy sources to gain popularity. The objective of this study is to compare the literature’s indication regarding restorative options for damaged vital and endodontically treated teeth (direct, inlay, onlay, overlay) with indications shared by dental professionals on Facebook. In particular, the aim is to assess differences or similarities between the responses of dental clinicians and the scientific literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two questionnaires were formulated, in Italian and in English, each containing six questions, with three possible answers and only one correct. The questionnaires were then published on different dentistry Facebook groups, both Italian and international. The participants were asked in which university they graduated, and the questionnaires involved topics such as indications for direct or indirect restoration of a vital or root-canal treated tooth, which materials to use for the fabrication of such restorations and which materials to use for indirect restorations’ adhesive cementation. For both questionnaires, a statistical analysis was conducted, firstly general, in which the total number and percentage of answers for each question and the relative means and standard deviations; then an analysis was conducted to see how the number of correct answers changed according to the university of graduation. RESULTS After six months, 134 participants answered to the Italian version of the questionnaire, while only 19 did for the English version. Comparing the answers collected from the Italian questionnaires with what is suggested by the literature showed that, in almost every question, the majority of the participants indicated the correct answer. In the English questionnaire, however, most participants indicated correct answers supported by literature in only two questions out of six. It is important to note that the international questionnaire had fewer participants, which may have influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS The spread of social networks in the conservative dentistry field is, for the most part, facilitating the spread of correct and scientifically proven dental knowledge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE The purpose of this article is to observe and emphasize the influence that social media, which have taken over the world of communication, are having in s p r e a d i n g c o r r e c t d e n t a l knowledge, regarding the indications proposed by the literature on when and how to perform an indirect partial restoration in posterior teeth. In everyday clinical practice, misinformation shared through social media can be dangerous for both uninformed patients which seek information through these platforms and inexperienced professionals: with the limitations of our results, it seems, however, that correct and evidence-based knowledge is being shared on the most numerous dental professionals-only groups on social networks.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
