Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Dentists on Medical Devices: Study in the Region of Dakar, Senegal
Science Journal of Public Health
Volume 4, Issue 5, September 2016, Pages: 396-400
Received: Jul. 20, 2016; Accepted: Aug. 1, 2016; Published: Aug. 21, 2016
Views 2480      Downloads 66
Authors
Kanouté Aida, Public Health Service, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Lo Cheikh Mouhamadou Mbacké, Public Health Service, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Faye Daouda, Public Health Service, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Cisse Daouda, Public Health Service, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Diop Mbathio, Public Health Service, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Galzim Marwane, Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Fall Mamadou, Toxicology and Hydrology Laboratory, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy and Dentistry, University Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the level of knowledge, attitudes and practices of the dental surgeon on medical device in the region of Dakar. This was a descriptive and cross-sectional study covering 130 dental surgeons practicing in the region of Dakar, selected following stratified sampling. One stratum grouped 60% of the sample that worked in dental public structures. Another stratum gathered 40% of the sample who were dentists working in private dental structures. More than half of the dental surgeons (53.8%) have at least observed once an adverse effect case with a predominance of allergy (42%). The prevailing attitude was to stop or removal of the material. However, more than 86% of the sample have never reported or notified any adverse effects following use of any material. Almost 9/10th of the surveyed sample (88.5%) have never been trained on medical device vigilance. These results strongly advocate for the integration of medical device vigilance in the current health monitoring system and for an improved awareness in notifying and spontaneously reporting adverse effects observed in the use of medical device. More than half of the dental surgeons (48.40%) do not define the medical device vigilance.
Keywords
Medical Device, Medical Device Vigilance, Dentist
To cite this article
Kanouté Aida, Lo Cheikh Mouhamadou Mbacké, Faye Daouda, Cisse Daouda, Diop Mbathio, Galzim Marwane, Fall Mamadou, Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Dentists on Medical Devices: Study in the Region of Dakar, Senegal, Science Journal of Public Health. Vol. 4, No. 5, 2016, pp. 396-400. doi: 10.11648/j.sjph.20160405.15
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et du produit de santé (ANSM). Bilan des règles applicables à la sécurité des dispositifs médicaux et propositions d’améliorations. France 2012. 76p.
[2]
Lemons JE. Dental implant biomaterials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 121(6): 716-19.
[3]
Indumathi Sivakumar. Occupational health hazards in a prosthodonti practice: review of risk factors and management strategies. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2012; 4: 259-65.
[4]
Khamaysi Z. Positive patch test reactions to allergens of the dental series and the relation to the clinical presentations. Contact Dermatitis. 2006; 55 (4): 216-18.
[5]
Legman P. La matériovigilance dans notre pays. J Radiol. 1997; 78: 1223-27.
[6]
Mbaye S. Évaluation des besoins en prothèse dentaire dans les cabinets dentaires au Sénégal. Thèse de Chirurgie Dentaire, Dakar, 2010, no 101.
[7]
Baker P S, Plummer K D, Parr G R, Parker M H. Dermal and mucosa reactions to an antimicrobial irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95: 190-3.
[8]
Schleier P E, Gardner F M, Nelson S K, Pashley D H. The effect of storage time on the accuracy and dimensional stability of reversible hydrocolloid impression material. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86: 244-250.
[9]
Wataha JC. Alloys for prosthodontic restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87 (4): 351-63.
[10]
Arenholt D, Bindslev. Material-related adverse reactions in orthodontics. First Edition Pocket dentistry Danmark 2012. 10p.
[11]
Beslot A, Lasfargues JJ. Mineral trioxide aggregate MTA: materiau d’apexification. Inf Dent. 2004; 35: 2263-73.
[12]
De Deus G, Ximenes R, Gurgel Filho ED et al. Cytotoxicity of MTA and portland dement on human ECV 304 endothelial cells. Int Endod J. 2005; 38(9): 604-09.
[13]
Wennerberg A, Ide-Ektessabi A, Hatkamata S. Titanium release from implants prepared with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15(5): 505-12.
[14]
Ghestin JS. L'allergie en chirurgie dentaire (mécanismes, reactions étiologies). Thèse en Chirurgie dentaire, Lille 2012, Bibliogr. f. 82-85.
[15]
Institut Thématique: Immunologie - Hématologie – Pneumologie Allergie immuno - Dermatite atopique. Enjeux médicaux. France 2010. 105p.
[16]
Diouf M, Bodian S, Lo CMM et al. Pharmacovigilance chez le chirurgiens-dentistes: enquête dans la région de Dakar, Sénégal. Santé Publique. 2013; 25: 69-76.
[17]
Enwere O, Okezie and Fawole Olufunmilayo. Adverse drug reaction reporting by physicians in Ibadan, Nigeria. Pharm. Drug Saf. 2008, 17: 517-22.
[18]
Aziz Z, Siang TC, Badarudin NS. Reporting of adverse drug reactions predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia. Pharm. Drug Saf. 2007; 16: 223-28.
[19]
Li Q, Zhang SM, Chen HT, Fang SP, Yu X, Liu D, Shi LY, Zeng FD. Awareness and attitudes of healthcare professionals in Wuhan, China to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Chin Med J (Engl). 2004; 117: 856-61.
[20]
Cosentino M, Leoni O, Banfi F, Leechini S, Frigo G. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in a Northern Italia district. Pharmacol Res. 1997; 35: 85-8.
[21]
Gonzalez LE, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A. Déterminants de la sous déclaration des effets indésirables: réactions aux médicaments: un examen systématique. Drug Saf 2009; 32: 19-31.
[22]
Mirbaha F, Shalviri G, Yazdizadeh B, Gholami K, Majdzadeh R. Perceived barriers to reporting adverse drug events in hospitals: a qualitative study using theoretical domains framework approach. Implement Sci. 2015; 10: 110.
[23]
Polisena J, Gagliardi A, Urbach D, Clifford T, Fiander M. Factors that influence the recognition, reporting and resolution of incidents related to medical devices and other healthcare technologies: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 29; 4: 37.
[24]
Polisena J, Gagliardi A, Clifford T. How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15: 220.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186