{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024551463644948063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011803588290840416, 'mean_word_length': 5.705696202531645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dental care providers' decision making regarding maintenance of compromised teeth and implant therapy indication: an analysis of gender and enrollment in teaching positions.

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate Brazilian dentists' decision making regarding periodontally involved teeth and implant therapy indications as well as possible modifying factors such as gender, enrollment in teaching positions, and area of specialization.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted among Brazilian dentists between June and November 2012. The questionnaire comprised 27 questions divided into four different sections: socio-demographic characteristics, questions about their clinical practice toward implant therapy, decision making in four clinical cases, and agreement with different statements regarding endodontic, periodontal, and implant therapy.


RESULTS
A total of 155 dentists answered the questionnaire with an average age of 35.5 years. Fifty-one percent were male, and 44.5% were involved in teaching positions. One hundred and thirty-six (87.7%) respondents had already pursued a post-graduation program or were currently involved in one. 33.5% placed dental implants, 42% provided implant maintenance care to their patients, while 30% performed treatment of peri-implant diseases themselves. Dental faculty and dentists who had not followed any further training program, preferred the use of regenerative therapies more frequently. As opposed, dentists not involved in teaching positions, and periodontists were more prone to select resective therapies.


CONCLUSION
Results suggest that dentists' decision making did not follow the latest external evidence, which might be related to factors as professional expertise and patients' preferences. Considering the difficulties faced by professionals when handling complex cases, there is an urgent need to establish international protocols and guidelines to help the clinician identify this particular treatment option, which corresponds with their internal evidence and is based on good external evidence.