IADR Abstract Archives
Pediatric Periodontal Screening Methods in U.S. Dental Schools
Objectives: The objective of this project is to describe pediatric periodontal assessment methods currently utilized and taught at U.S. dental schools and to assess the current attitude among dental faculty toward the need for periodontal screening in the pediatric patients.
Methods: Email invitations were sent to department chairs, post-graduate directors and pre-doctoral directors from all pediatric and periodontic programs in the U.S. to participate in a web-based survey (Qualtrics). The survey asked them to identify the periodontal assessment methods currently utilized and taught in their programs for pediatric patients and encouraged them to disseminate the email survey among relevant faculty in their programs. Direct survey emails were also sent to selected faculty members identified from their program websites. The survey was sent out to 145 U.S. pediatric and periodontic programs 3 times over the course of 2 months. Of the 145 programs, 47 were periodontics programs (32.4%) and 98 were pediatric programs (67.6%).
Results: There was a response rate of 28% (40/145) from all the programs in both the pediatrics and periodontics departments in across the US. Returned surveys had an average completion rate of 100%. Of the 40 schools that responded, 20 responses were from periodontics programs (50%) and 20 responses were from pediatric programs (50%)
Conclusions: Majority of the respondents believed that there is a need for an official periodontal assessment guideline for pediatric patients and they believed such guideline will improve student learning, teaching, and also quality of patient care. Most respondents indicated that periodontal assessment in pediatric patients are performed in their programs with visual inspection and radiographic assessment for primary, mixed, and permanent dentitions every 6 months. Selective periodontal probings were sometimes carried out with full mouth periodontal probings occurring less frequently and some programs reported no routine periodontal assessment done in pediatric patients.
Methods: Email invitations were sent to department chairs, post-graduate directors and pre-doctoral directors from all pediatric and periodontic programs in the U.S. to participate in a web-based survey (Qualtrics). The survey asked them to identify the periodontal assessment methods currently utilized and taught in their programs for pediatric patients and encouraged them to disseminate the email survey among relevant faculty in their programs. Direct survey emails were also sent to selected faculty members identified from their program websites. The survey was sent out to 145 U.S. pediatric and periodontic programs 3 times over the course of 2 months. Of the 145 programs, 47 were periodontics programs (32.4%) and 98 were pediatric programs (67.6%).
Results: There was a response rate of 28% (40/145) from all the programs in both the pediatrics and periodontics departments in across the US. Returned surveys had an average completion rate of 100%. Of the 40 schools that responded, 20 responses were from periodontics programs (50%) and 20 responses were from pediatric programs (50%)
Conclusions: Majority of the respondents believed that there is a need for an official periodontal assessment guideline for pediatric patients and they believed such guideline will improve student learning, teaching, and also quality of patient care. Most respondents indicated that periodontal assessment in pediatric patients are performed in their programs with visual inspection and radiographic assessment for primary, mixed, and permanent dentitions every 6 months. Selective periodontal probings were sometimes carried out with full mouth periodontal probings occurring less frequently and some programs reported no routine periodontal assessment done in pediatric patients.