Logo-ajdr
ePublished: 30 Jun 2009
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

Avicenna J Dent Res. 2009;1(1): 29-36.
  Abstract View: 827
  PDF Download: 454

Original Article

Knowledge of Dentists about Halitosis in Tehran(2004)

Z. Maleki 1*, K. Alavi 2,3, S.Haji Mohammadi 4

1 Associate Professor. Department of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Deprtment of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran.
3 General Medical Practitioner, Iranian Center for Dental Research
4 Dentist
*Corresponding Author: Corresponding Author: Z. Maleki Address: Department. of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Tel:+98 21 29902311, Email: Ziba1340@yahoo.com

Abstract

 Statement of the problem: Halitosis is a common condition. Many oral diseases, as well as several systemic diseases, may cause halitosis. According to some studies the prevalence of this symptom is more than 50%.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the knowledge of general practitioners (dentists), who work in Tehran, about “halitosis”.

Material & Methods: In this cross-sectional, descriptive study 379 dentists were evaluated. The questionnaire consisted of 15 multiple choice questions (5 choices with one of them being an “I don’t know”). There were 5 questions for evaluating knowledge about etiology of halitosis, 4 questions about pathogenesis, 4 questions on diagnosis and differential diagnosis, and 2 questions for treatment. Criterion scores (of 15) calculated as sum of correct answers and ¼ for an “I don’t know” answer. Spearman- Brown’s reliability index was 0.8. Chi-square and Lawshe’s ω test were used for statistical analysis.

Results: Mean (±standard deviation) of criterion scores was 8.06±2.15 out of 15 (median of 8; range of 2.75 to 13). The mean of correct and wrong answers were 7.3±2.3 (median of 7) and 4.7±2.4 (median of 5), respectively. According to extreme groups’ scores all items were appropriately distinctive. Difficulty degree varied from 8.2% to 86.5%.

Conclusion: The level of general practitioners’ knowledge was relatively low. Only about half of study population could achieve a criterion score more than 7.5 out of 15.  

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 828

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 454

Your browser does not support the canvas element.