Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 February;70(1) > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 February;70(1):7-14

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 February;70(1):7-14

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.20.04416-7

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

A new software architecture proposal for an evidence-based Decision Support System in dentistry

Giuseppe LO GIUDICE 1 , Angelo S. LIZIO 1, Roberto LO GIUDICE 2

1 Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, G. Martino University Hospital, University of Messina, Messina, Italy; 2 Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy



BACKGROUND: in dentistry, clinical problems could be resolved using many therapeutic approaches that may results in very different therapies. In order to choose the best option, a good evaluation of therapy long-term survival and success rate is mandatory. The routine use of a decision support analysis software is nowadays limited due to the lack of software’s flexibility especially when a variety of possible therapeutic option are present. The aim of this research was to develop a new algorithm model for a Decision Support System software to give diagnosis support in dentistry.
METHODS: Beta tests were designed to study the computer software in different clinical situations based on clinical data. The therapeutic options can be conservative/endodontic or extractive/prosthetic therapies. In two of clinical situation selected could be possible to choose both therapies.
RESULTS: in clinical situations tested, the DDS software correctly identified the several therapeutic options. When multiple treatments were possible the beta test showed an output mask that correctly showed a range of options with their corresponding survival and success rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The software architecture proposed by the authors is technically feasible, can support the clinician choices based on scientific evidence and up-to-date references and gain informed consent based on data easily understandable for the patient.


KEY WORDS: Software; Dental caries; Prostheses and implants; Preventive dentistry

top of page