[Table/Fig-5]:
Shows bivariate analysis between ‘Training in MID’ and Attitude of practitioners about various MID procedures in clinical practice.
| Techniques $ | Training in MID | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes % |
No % |
p-value | |
| ART (Atraumatic Restorative Treatment) (n) Very effective/Effective (108) Ineffective/Very Ineffective (29) |
79.5 37.5 |
20.5 62.5 |
0.37 |
| Sandwich Technique (Glass Ionomer + Composite) (n) Very effective/Effective (107) Ineffective/Very Ineffective (35) |
59.8 45 |
40.2 55 |
0.28 |
| Remineralization with fluoride varnish or any other topical fluoride products (n) Very effective/Effective (102) Ineffective/Very Ineffective (38) |
81.9 20 |
18.1 80 |
0.003* |
| Remineralization with high concentration fluoride toothpaste at home (Duraphat 2800/5000 ppm F) (n) Very effective/Effective (98) Ineffective/Very Ineffective (44) |
57.4 55.7 |
42.6 44.3 |
0.65 |
$ Responses with ‘Don’t Know’ have been excluded from the calculations.
* Significant at p < 0.05 (Pearson’s chi-square test)