Experiences of oral health: before, during and after becoming a regular user of GC Tooth Mousse Plus®.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and laboratory studies from around the world have shown that GC Tooth Mousse Plus® (TMP) is effective in protecting teeth from tooth decay and erosion, buffering dental plaque pH, remineralising white spot lesions and reducing dentine hypersensitivity. However, no other study has assessed the experiences of oral health, before, during and after individuals becoming regular users of TMP. The aim of this study was to identify how participants' oral health status changed after introducing TMP into their oral hygiene routine. METHODS: A qualitative study using Charmaz's grounded theory methodology was conducted. Fifteen purposively sampled regular users of TMP were interviewed. Transcripts were analysed after each interview. Data analysis consisted of transcript coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation. RESULTS: Participants described their experiences of oral health and disease, before, during and after introducing TMP into their daily oral hygiene routine, together with the historical, biological, financial, psychosocial, and habitual dimensions of their experiences. Before becoming a regular user of TMP, participants described themselves as having a damaged mouth with vulnerable teeth, dry mouth, and sensitivity. Various aspects of participants' histories were relevant, such as, family history and history of oral disease. Having a damaged mouth with vulnerable teeth, dry mouth and sensitivity was explained by those elements. Despite some initial barriers, once being prescribed TMP by a dental professional, a three-fold process of change was initiated: starting a new oral hygiene routine, persevering daily, and experiencing reinforcing outcomes. This process led to a fundamental lifestyle change. Participants transitioned from having a damaged mouth with vulnerable teeth to having a comfortable mouth with strong teeth; at the same time participants felt empowered by this newly found status of being able to keep their teeth for life. Barriers and facilitators for incorporating TMP on daily oral hygiene routine were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Participants valued having a comfortable mouth with strong teeth, which did not require repeated restorations. Seeing concrete results in their mouths and experiencing a more comfortable mouth boosted adherence to daily applications of TMP, which was maintained over time.

Experiences of dental care: what do patients value?

BACKGROUND: Dentistry in Australia combines business and health care service, that is, the majority of patients pay money for tangible dental procedures such as fluoride applications, dental radiographs, dental fillings, crowns, and dentures among others. There is evidence that patients question dentists' behaviours and attitudes during a dental visit when those highly technical procedures are performed. However, little is known about how patients' experience dental care as a whole. This paper illustrates the findings from a qualitative study recently undertaken in general dental practice in Australia. It focuses on patients' experiences of dental care, particularly on the relationship between patients and dentists during the provision of preventive care and advice in general dental practices. METHODS: Seventeen patients were interviewed. Data analysis consisted of transcript coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation. RESULTS: Patients described their experiences when visiting dental practices with and without a structured preventive approach in place, together with the historical, biological, financial, psychosocial and habitual dimensions of their experience. Potential barriers that could hinder preventive activities as well as facilitators for prevention were also described. The offer of preventive dental care and advice was an amazing revelation for this group of patients as they realized that dentists could practice dentistry without having to "drill and fill" their teeth. All patients, regardless of the practice they came from or their level of clinical risk of developing dental caries, valued having a caring dentist who respected them and listened to their concerns without "blaming" them for their oral health status. These patients complied with and supported the preventive care options because they were being "treated as a person not as a patient" by their dentists. Patients valued dentists who made them aware of existing preventive options, educated them about how to maintain a healthy mouth and teeth, and supported and reassured them frequently during visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients valued having a supportive and caring dentist and a dedicated dental team. The experience of having a dedicated, supportive and caring dentist helped patients to take control of their own oral health. These dentists and dental teams produced profound changes in not just the oral health care routines of patients, but in the way patients thought about their own oral health and the role of dental professionals.

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature. METHODS: We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice. RESULTS: We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices. CONCLUSIONS: By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.

Modeling the long-term cost-effectiveness of the caries management system in an Australian population.

OBJECTIVES: The Monitor Practice Program demonstrated that regular monitoring and noninvasive management of dental caries is effective in reducing the incremental DMFT (decayed, missing, and filled teeth) in patients, within the construct of a 3-year randomized clinical trial. This analysis evaluates the long-term cost-effectiveness of the preventive approach underpinning the Caries Management System, used in the general practice setting and modeled to the Australian population. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation Markov model was developed to compare the long-term costs and outcomes of the Caries Management System versus standard dental care in a hypothetical sample representative of the Australian population. Eight Markov submodels were developed, representing eight molar teeth (excluding wisdom teeth), each consisting of 11 health states simulating the incidence and progression of dental caries, and future interventions such as fillings and crowns. Transition probabilities and costs assigned to health states were based on claims data from the second largest private health insurer in Australia. The economic evaluation was performed from the Australian private dental practitioner perspective. The incremental cost per DMFT avoided was calculated at three time points: 2 years, 3 years, and lifetime. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The incremental cost per DMFT avoided at 2 years, 3 years, and lifetime was estimated to be $1287.07, $1148.91, and $1795.06, respectively. CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that the Caries Management System is most cost-effective in patients with a high risk of dental caries.

How do dentists and their teams incorporate evidence about preventive care? An empirical study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify how dentists and their teams adopt evidence-based preventive care. METHODS: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. We interviewed 23 participants working in eight dental practices about their experience and work processes, while adopting evidence-based preventive care. During the study, Charmaz's grounded theory methodology was employed to examine the social process of adopting preventive dental care in dental practices. Charmaz's iteration of the constant comparative method was used during the data analysis. This involved coding of interview transcripts, detailed memo-writing and drawing diagrams. The transcripts were analyzed as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice. Coding was conducted primarily by AS, supported by team meetings and discussions when researchers compared their interpretations. RESULTS: Participants engaged in a slow process of adapting evidence-based protocols and guidelines to the existing logistics of the practices. This process was influenced by practical, philosophical, and historical aspects of dental care, and a range of barriers and facilitators. In particular, dentists spoke spontaneously about two deeply held 'rules' underpinning continued restorative treatment, which acted as barriers to provide preventive care: (i) dentists believed that some patients were too 'unreliable' to benefit from prevention; and (ii) dentists believed that patients thought that only tangible restorative treatment offered 'value for money'. During the adaptation process, some dentists and teams transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. Resources were needed for the adaptation process to occur, including: the ability to maintain the financial viability of the practice, appropriate technology, time, and supportive dental team relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study show that with considerable effort, motivation and coordination, it is possible for dental practices to work against the dental 'mainstream' and implement prevention as their clinical norm. This study has shown that dental practice is not purely scientific, but it includes cultural, social, and economic resources that interfere with the provision of preventive care.