Cranio : the journal of craniomandibular practice · 2026
Care network for individuals with temporomandibular disorders in the Brazilian Unified Health System: Perspective of managers and dental surgeons.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lopes Pedro da Silva Pâmela, Azevedo Lemos George, Vicente Lôbo Maelly, Cavalcanti Yuri Wanderley, Dantas Batista André Ulisses
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the care network for individuals with orofacial pain (OFP) and temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
METHODS: Oral health managers and primary health care (PHC) dentists completed electronic questionnaires addressing service availability, clinical practices, knowledge-related items, and referral services for TMD and OFP. Data were statistically analyzed at a significance level of 5% (p < .05).
RESULTS: Most managers reported that neither PHC (n = 82; 85.4%) nor secondary care (n = 68; 70.8%) treats patients with TMD. Most dentists reported not treating TMD patients (n = 209; 56.3%) and being unaware of public referral services (n = 268; 72.2%). Dentists' responses differed from evidence-based recommendations on TMD etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Specialist status was associated with more evidence-consistent responses, particularly regarding traditional occlusal concepts.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest challenges in organizing TMD/OFP care within SUS, particularly regarding service availability, alignment of dentists' responses with current evidence, and awareness of referral pathways.
METHODS: Oral health managers and primary health care (PHC) dentists completed electronic questionnaires addressing service availability, clinical practices, knowledge-related items, and referral services for TMD and OFP. Data were statistically analyzed at a significance level of 5% (p < .05).
RESULTS: Most managers reported that neither PHC (n = 82; 85.4%) nor secondary care (n = 68; 70.8%) treats patients with TMD. Most dentists reported not treating TMD patients (n = 209; 56.3%) and being unaware of public referral services (n = 268; 72.2%). Dentists' responses differed from evidence-based recommendations on TMD etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Specialist status was associated with more evidence-consistent responses, particularly regarding traditional occlusal concepts.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest challenges in organizing TMD/OFP care within SUS, particularly regarding service availability, alignment of dentists' responses with current evidence, and awareness of referral pathways.