This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Knutsson, K. Articles by Rohlin, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Knutsson, K. Articles by Rohlin, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dentists' Judgment Strategies on Prophylactic Removal of Mandibular Third Molars

'Department of Oral Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Malmö University, Carl Gustavsv. 34, S 214 21 Malmö, Sweden

L. Lysell

Department of Oral Surgery, Central Hospital, Kristianstad, Sweden

M. Rohlin

'Department of Oral Radiology, Faculty of Odontology, Centre for Oral Health Sciences, Malmö University, Carl Gustavsv. 34, S 214 21 Malmö, Sweden

The number of molars selected for prophylactic removal varies widely among general dental practitioners and oral surgeons. To understand the basis for such variations, we investigated two hypotheses: (1) Individual judgment strategies will differ concerning the use of cues (items of information), and (2) few dentists will integrate the cues according to evidence in the literature. To analyze 30 general dental practitioners' (GDPs) and 10 oral surgeons' use of cues in the judgment preceding the treatment decision, we used the Brunwik's lens as a conceptual model. The cues were the patient's age, and the angular position and the degree of impaction of the molar. The clinical situation was simulated by written case descriptions. The proportion of variation explained by the cues and their combinations (total model) varied between 61% and 100% and between 4% and 76% as main effects. Two GDPs and one oral surgeon integrated the cues additively, i.e., any of the cues is independent of the other cues in the judgment. In general, the dentists integrated the cues interactively, i.e., the impact of one cue depends on the levels of some other cues. Even though most variations in judgments were accounted for by the cues, the dentists did not integrate the cues according to evidence in the literature and lacked insight into their decision-making thought processes.

Key Words: third molar • dental • decision-making • judgment analysis • treatment variation.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 79, No. 12, 1989-1995 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790121101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Zadik and L. Levin Clinical Decision Making in Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics, and Antibiotic Prescription J Dent Educ., January 1, 2008; 72(1): 81 - 86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]