AU - Prathima, V AU - Reddy, P AU - Anjum, Md AU - Monica, M TI - Attitude and Utilization of dental auxiliaries by Dental practitioners in Hyderabad city, Andhra Pradesh: A cross sectional study PT - ARTI DP - 2012 Jul 1 TA - Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry PG - 39-46 VI - 10 IP - 19 4099- https://journals.lww.com/aphd/pages/default.aspx/article.asp?issn=2319-5932;year=2012;volume=10;issue=19;spage=39;epage=46;aulast=Prathima;type=0 4100- https://journals.lww.com/aphd/pages/default.aspx/article.asp?issn=2319-5932;year=2012;volume=10;issue=19;spage=39;epage=46;aulast=Prathima AB - Background: Many studies have found increase in efficiency, effectiveness and productivity by utilizing a trained auxiliary in clinical practice by the dentists. Hence many dentists favored team approach but few barriers such as unavailability, economic factor and patient's unacceptance were hindering them in utilizing dental auxiliaries properly. Aim: To assess the attitude and utilization of dental auxiliaries by dentists in their clinical practice in Hyderabad city. Methodology: 240 dental practitioners were selected by systematic random sampling method from the list obtained from Indian Dental Association, Deccan branch. Data was collected by a structured questionnaire. Results: Nearly 98% of them employed auxiliaries in their clinic. 73.2% employed trained person during their practice hours and only 6.2% employed trained and certified person. 6.3% employed only dental hygienists and 70% dental lab technicians (full time). Nearly 50% of the practitioners who were utilizing trained person during their practice reported that they do all the work (reception work, sterilization care and preparation of instruments, chair side assisting work and taking radiograph). Nearly 40% gave theirjustification for utilizing auxiliary as quality of care given to the patient and work efficiency will by more and nearly 70% of them gave their reason for not utilizing and type of dental auxiliary in their clinic as unavailability. Conclusion: Unavailability of the structured trained auxiliary was the major reason for the practitioners not utilizing a trained and certified person in their clinical practice.