Evidence Hub

Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dentists on Minimal Intervention Dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Regina Cardoso de Moura, P. Santos, Patrícia Magno dosSantos Matias, F. C. Vitali, L. Hilgert, M. Cardoso, C. Massignan

E -journal of dentistry, 2023

1,728 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) of dentists on Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID).

DATA

Cross-sectional studies that analyzed KAP outcomes on MID principles were included.

SOURCES

Eight databases (Cochrane, DOSS, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and the grey literature were searched on January 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two independent reviewers selected the included studies, initially by screening titles and abstracts and, finally, by full-text reading. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Assessment Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Proportion meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model for data analysis. Cochran's Q test was used to assess the heterogeneity and the I² statistic for evaluation of true variation due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2,079 studies initially identified, twelve were included in the systematic review. Twenty-four statements about MID were included in the meta-analysis, based on data from ten studies (n=1728 participants). The pooled proportion of knowledge on MID was 75.66% (95%CI: 69.33 - 81.48; p<0.01; I²: 97%; Tau2: 0.0456) and of attitudes and practice was 47.95% (95%CI: 38.55 - 57.43; p<0.01; I²: 98%; Tau2: 0.0743). The higher prevalences rates were in the "knowledge" field, and the lowest was in "attitudes and practice".

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the knowledge of dentists on MID topics is acceptable,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,728 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free