IADR Abstract Archives
Implementation of Minimally Invasive Dentistry Through Qualitative Research: Scoping Review
Objectives: This scoping review synthesises qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators in paediatric dentistry, focusing on factors influencing the adoption of minimally invasive techniques. It identifies the types of qualitative evidence available to better understand these barriers and facilitators within this context.
Methods: The search was conducted in PubMed and EBSCOhost databases (1990–2024) using a three-step strategy: exploratory search, database-specific search, and reference list analysis. Studies on qualitative methodologies exploring attitudes toward Minimally Invasive Dentistry (MID) were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Data extraction covered study design, MID techniques, context, methods, and key findings. Bias risk was assessed using the CASP checklist.
Results: Of 278 records identified, 17 studies were included, focusing on attitudes toward Silver Diamine Fluoride, Hall Technique, and Atraumatic Restorative Technique in pediatric populations, particularly parents and children. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were common methods. Facilitators of MID adoption included simplicity, effectiveness, non-invasiveness, and suitability for uncooperative children. Barriers included lack of information, aesthetic concerns, and cultural or social norms. Regional attitudes varied due to cultural, economic, and healthcare differences. Discrepancies between parental and professional perceptions highlighted the need for better information dissemination. Of the studies, 16 had moderate risk of bias and one high, mainly due to biased recruitment and insufficient transparency in researcher-participant relationships.
Conclusions: Qualitative research on MID adoption has mainly focused on parents and children, overlooking other key stakeholders like educators and general practitioners. Region-specific strategies are needed to address barriers and improve MID acceptance in pediatric dentistry. Future studies should include diverse community contexts and explore innovative MID advocacy approaches. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the moderate risk of bias in the primary studies.
Methods: The search was conducted in PubMed and EBSCOhost databases (1990–2024) using a three-step strategy: exploratory search, database-specific search, and reference list analysis. Studies on qualitative methodologies exploring attitudes toward Minimally Invasive Dentistry (MID) were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Data extraction covered study design, MID techniques, context, methods, and key findings. Bias risk was assessed using the CASP checklist.
Results: Of 278 records identified, 17 studies were included, focusing on attitudes toward Silver Diamine Fluoride, Hall Technique, and Atraumatic Restorative Technique in pediatric populations, particularly parents and children. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were common methods. Facilitators of MID adoption included simplicity, effectiveness, non-invasiveness, and suitability for uncooperative children. Barriers included lack of information, aesthetic concerns, and cultural or social norms. Regional attitudes varied due to cultural, economic, and healthcare differences. Discrepancies between parental and professional perceptions highlighted the need for better information dissemination. Of the studies, 16 had moderate risk of bias and one high, mainly due to biased recruitment and insufficient transparency in researcher-participant relationships.
Conclusions: Qualitative research on MID adoption has mainly focused on parents and children, overlooking other key stakeholders like educators and general practitioners. Region-specific strategies are needed to address barriers and improve MID acceptance in pediatric dentistry. Future studies should include diverse community contexts and explore innovative MID advocacy approaches. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the moderate risk of bias in the primary studies.