Patient and dentist perspectives on collecting patient reported outcomes after painful dental procedures in the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: Dental Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) relate to a dental patient's subjective experience of their oral health. How practitioners and patients value PROs influences their successful use in practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 practitioners and 32 patients who provided feedback on using a mobile health (mHealth) platform to collect the pain experience after dental procedures. A themes analysis was conducted to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Five themes were uncovered: (1) Sense of Better Care. (2) Tailored Follow-up based on the dental procedure and patient's pain experience. (3) Effective Messaging and Alerts. (4) Usable Digital Platform. (5) Routine mHealth Integration. CONCLUSION: Frequent automated and preferably tailored follow-up messages using an mHealth platform provided a positive care experience for patients, while providers felt it saved them time and effort. Patients thought that the mHealth questionnaires were well-developed and of appropriate length. The mHealth platform itself was perceived as user-friendly by users, and most would like to continue using it. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients are prepared to use mobile phones to report their pain experience after dental procedures. Practitioners will be able to close the post-operative communication gap with their patients, with little interruption of their workflow.

Pain management after third molar extractions in adolescents: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how adolescent patients make decisions about pain management after complex dental procedures could help reduce the use of opioid medications and the potential for future opioid misuse in this population. This qualitative study explores how adolescents manage pain, including how decision making with parents and providers affect their experience with opioid and non-opioid analgesics after third molar dental extractions. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach for the analysis of 30 telephone-based semi-structured interviews completed by 15 dyads between May and August 2019, which included 15 adolescents (15-17 years) who underwent a dental extraction, and a parent or guardian for each adolescent. The total sample included 30 participants. Interviews were conducted separately for patients and parents. De-identified interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative analysis software using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 15 patient/parent dyads were interviewed. Key themes associated with pain management included sources of information, pain management behaviors engaged in by the adolescents and their caregivers, and the use of medication. In addition to conversations with their dental provider, most patients and their parents discussed pain management plans that included non-medication options, over-the-counter medications, and opioid medications to be taken as needed, which guided their post-extraction behaviors. All participants reported that the adolescent received an opioid prescription for post-extraction pain management, to be taken on an "as needed" basis, but most only took it the day of the extraction and up to 2 days following, usually based on the patient's reported pain levels and perceptions of over-the-counter medication adequacy. Participants said they did not receive guidance from their provider concerning disposal of unused opioid medications. CONCLUSIONS: Involving adolescents in the pain management decision making process and allowing them to carry out the plan with some caregiver support was acceptable and well executed following third molar extractions. Providers may have an opportunity to reduce the number of opioids prescribed, since respondents reported little to no use of opioids that they were prescribed. Providers should educate patients and their parents about safe disposal of opioids to mitigate the potential for diversion.

Study protocol: understanding pain after dental procedures, an observational study within the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures provide an essential perspective on the quality of health care provided. However, how data are collected, how providers value and make sense of the data, and, ultimately, use the data to create meaningful impact all influence the success of using patient-reported outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to assess post-operative pain experiences by dental procedure type through 21 days post-procedure as reported by patients following dental procedures and assess patients' satisfaction with pain management following dental surgical procedures. Secondary objectives are to: 1) assess post-operative pain management strategies 1 week following dental surgical procedures, as recommended by practitioners and reported by patients, and 2) evaluate practitioner and patient acceptance of the FollowApp.Care post visit patient monitoring technology (FollowApp.Care). We will evaluate FollowApp.Care usage, perceived usefulness, ease of use, and impact on clinical workload. DESIGN AND METHODS: We describe the protocol for an observational study involving the use of the FollowApp.Care platform, an innovative mobile application that collects dental patients' assessments of their post-operative symptoms (e.g., pain). The study will be conducted in collaboration with the National Dental Practice-based Research Network, a collective Network of dental practices that include private and group practices, public health clinics, community health centers and Federal Qualified Health Centers, academic institutional settings, and special patient populations. We will recruit a minimum of 150 and up to 215 dental providers and up to 3147 patients who will receive push notifications through text messages FollowApp.Care on their mobile phones at designated time intervals following dental procedures. This innovative approach of implementing an existing and tested mobile health system technology into the real-world dental office setting will actively track pain and other complications following dental procedures. Through patients' use of their mobile phones, we expect to promptly and precisely identify specific pain levels and other issues after surgical dental procedures. The study's primary outcome will be the patients' reported pain experiences. Secondary outcomes include pain management strategies and medications implemented by the patient and provider and perceptions of usefulness and ease of use by patients and providers.

Implementation science and periodontal practice: Translation of evidence into periodontology.

The advent of evidence-based practice in the 1990s led to the development of processes and resources to support the use of high-quality research in the provision of health care. As the evidence-based approach to health care continues to evolve, it has become apparent that mere creation and access to scientific knowledge is not sufficient to facilitate its routine adoption in health care. Throughout any health care system, there are inherent barriers preventing the adoption and routine use of new evidence in patient care. These barriers include provider-level factors, such as knowledge and access to new evidence, as well as each provider's attitudes and beliefs around adopting and applying the evidence with their patients. Importantly, there are also health care system-level barriers that, even among willing providers, prevent the easy adoption of new evidence and routine application in patient care. In addition to barriers, there are facilitators that help promote adoption of evidence into practice. Understanding and addressing barriers and facilitators to promote adoption of evidence into practice has led to the growth of a new field known as implementation science. Successful application of implementation science in all areas of health care, including periodontology, will help bridge the gap between what are known from clinical research to be effective treatments and what treatments should be applied routinely in clinical practice. This article reviews key concepts in implementation science and how its application in periodontology can facilitate the translation of high-quality evidence into routine periodontal practice and improved patient outcomes.

Training experiences regarding pain management, addiction, and drug diversion of dentists enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Background: The purpose of this study was to describe dentists' training experiences relevant to pain management, addiction, and prescription opioid drug diversion and examine associations between these training experiences and dentists' opioid prescribing practices. Methods: A Web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted among practicing dentist members of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN; N = 822). The survey assessed pain management prescribing practices and training experiences related to pain management and assessment for addiction and drug diversion. Survey data were linked with National Dental PBRN Enrollment Questionnaire data regarding practitioner demographics and practice characteristics. Results: The majority of dentists (67%) reported prior training in pain management; however, a minority of dentists reported prior training regarding identification and assessment of drug abuse or addiction (48%) or identification of prescription drug diversion (25%). The majority of training experiences across all topics occurred through continuing dental education participation. Dental school training relevant to pain management, addiction, and identification of drug diversion was more prevalent among more recent dental school graduates. Training experiences were associated with prescribing practices. Conclusions: Results suggest that across multiple levels of training, many dentists are not receiving training specific to addiction assessment and identification of drug diversion. Such training is associated with greater consistency of risk mitigation implementation in practice.

Concordance between practitioner questionnaire responses and observed clinical treatment recommendations for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Few published reports have presented concordance between treatment choices selected by dentists in hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice. The aim of the current cross-sectional study, conducted within the Management of Dental Hypersensitivity (MDH) study, was to assess the potential value of practitioners' questionnaire responses regarding their typical treatment provided for management of dentin hypersensitivity (DH), by evaluating agreement between these responses and subsequently-observed recommendations recorded during actual clinical examinations. METHODS: A total of 171 practitioners enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed both a questionnaire and a clinical study regarding methods they use to treat dental hypersensitivity. The questionnaire solicited first-, second- and third-choice products when prescribing or recommending management of dentin hypersensitivity. Agreement was calculated for first-choice products/recommendations and for inclusion in the top three choices, as identified by the practitioners, from 11 listed treatment options. Overall percent agreement and Cohen's kappa statistic were calculated, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations between practitioner characteristics and agreement were also evaluated. RESULTS: For individual treatment modalities, percentage agreement ranged from 63 to 99%, depending on the specific item. Percentage agreement between typical treatment and actual treatment for each practitioner's top three treatment modalities, as a combined grouping, ranged from 61 to 100%. When these same agreement pairings were quantified to account for agreement above that expected by chance, kappa values were poor to low. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice showed moderate to high levels of percentage agreement, but Cohen's kappa values suggested relatively low levels of agreement beyond that expected by chance. This analysis adds to the larger work of the network which has now observed a wide range of agreement between hypothetical and actual care, depending upon the specific diagnosis or treatment under consideration. Questionnaire data for DH might serve as a useful adjunct to clinical data regarding treatment recommendations, but agreement was not sufficiently high to justify use of questionnaires alone to characterize patterns of treatment for this particular condition.

Repair or Replacement of Restorations: A Prospective cohort study by dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: A prospective cohort study that included dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network was conducted to quantify 12-month failures of restorations that were repaired or replaced at baseline. The study tested the hypothesis that no significant differences exist in failure percentages between repaired and replaced restorations after 12 months. It also tested the hypothesis that certain dentist, patient, and restoration characteristics are significantly associated with the incidence of restoration failure. METHODS: Dentists recorded data for 50 or more consecutive defective restorations. The restorations that were either - repaired or replaced were recalled after 12 months and characterized for developing defects. RESULTS: Dentists (N = 195) recorded data on 5,889 restorations; 378 restorations required additional treatment (74 repaired, 171 replaced, 84 teeth received endodontic treatment, and 49 were extracted). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that additional treatment was more likely to occur if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with replaced (5%) (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.1), if a molar was restored (7%) compared with premolars or anterior teeth (5% and 6%, respectively) (OR, 1.4; P = .010; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), and if the primary reason was a fracture (8%) compared with other reasons (6%) (OR, 1.3; P = .033; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: An additional treatment was more likely to occur within the first year if the original restoration had been repaired (7%) compared with being replaced (5%). However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment (replacement, endodontic treatment, or extraction) than replaced restorations. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: One year after repair or replacement of a defective restoration, the failure rate was low. However, repaired restorations were less likely to need an aggressive treatment than replaced restorations.

Provision of Specific Dental Procedures By General Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: Questionnaire Findings.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to: (1) determine whether and how often general dentists (GDs) provide specific dental procedures; and (2) test the hypothesis that provision is associated with key dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. METHODS: GDs (n = 2,367) in the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed an Enrollment Questionnaire that included: (1) dentist; (2) practice; and (3) patient characteristics, and how commonly they provide each of 10 dental procedures. We determined how commonly procedures were provided and tested the hypothesis that provision was substantively related to the 3 sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Two procedure categories were classified as "uncommon" (orthodontics, periodontal surgery), 3 were "common" (molar endodontics; implants; non-surgical periodontics), and 5 were "very common" (restorative; esthetic procedures; extractions; removable prosthetics; non-molar endodontics). Dentist, practice, and patient characteristics were substantively related to procedure provision; several characteristics seemed to have pervasive effects, such as dentist gender, training after dental school, full-time/part- time status, private practice vs. institutional practice, presence of a specialist in the same practice, and insurance status of patients. CONCLUSIONS: As a group, GDs provide a comprehensive range of procedures. However, provision by individual dentists is substantively related to certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. A large number and broad range of factors seem to influence which procedures GDs provide. This may have implications for how GDs respond to the ever-changing landscape of dental care utilization, patient population demography, scope of practice, delivery models and GDs' evolving role in primary care.

Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to: (1) determine whether and how often general dentists (GDs) provide specific dental procedures; and (2) test the hypothesis that provision is associated with key dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. METHODS: GDs (n = 2,367) in the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed an Enrollment Questionnaire that included: (1) dentist; (2) practice; and (3) patient characteristics, and how commonly they provide each of 10 dental procedures. We determined how commonly procedures were provided and tested the hypothesis that provision was substantively related to the three sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Two procedure categories were classified as "uncommon" (orthodontics, periodontal surgery), three were "common" (molar endodontics; implants; non-surgical periodontics), and five were "very common" (restorative; esthetic procedures; extractions; removable prosthetics; non-molar endodontics). Dentist, practice, and patient characteristics were substantively related to procedure provision; several characteristics seemed to have pervasive effects, such as dentist gender, training after dental school, full-time/part-time status, private practice vs. institutional practice, presence of a specialist in the same practice, and insurance status of patients. CONCLUSIONS: As a group, GDs provide a comprehensive range of procedures. However, provision by individual dentists is substantively related to certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. A large number and broad range of factors seem to influence which procedures GDs provide. This may have implications for how GDs respond to the ever-changing landscape of dental care utilization, patient population demography, scope of practice, delivery models and GDs' evolving role in primary care.

Dentist and practice characteristics associated with restorative treatment of enamel caries in permanent teeth: multiple-regression modeling of observational clinical data from the National Dental PBRN.

PURPOSE: Current evidence in dentistry recommends non-surgical treatment to manage enamel caries lesions. However, surveyed practitioners report they would restore enamel lesions that are confined to the enamel. Actual clinical data were used to evaluate patient, dentist, and practice characteristics associated with restoration of enamel caries, while accounting for other factors. METHODS: Data from a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network observational study of consecutive restorations placed in previously unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and practice/demographic data from 229 participating network dentists were combined. ANOVA and logistic regression, using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and variable selection within blocks, were used to test the hypothesis that patient, dentist, and practice characteristics were associated with variations in enamel restorations of occlusal and proximal caries compared to dentin lesions, accounting for dentist and patient clustering. RESULTS: Network dentists from five regions placed 6,891 restorations involving occlusal and/or proximal caries lesions. Enamel restorations accounted for 16% of enrolled occlusal caries lesions and 6% of enrolled proximal caries lesions. Enamel occlusal restorations varied significantly (P < 0.05) by patient age and race/ethnicity, dentists' use of caries risk assessment, network region, and practice type. Enamel proximal restorations varied significantly (P < 0.05) by dentist race/ethnicity, network region, and practice type.

Survival analysis of posterior composite restorations in National Dental PBRN general dentistry practices.

OBJECTIVE: Quantify the survival of posterior composite restorations (PCR) placed during the study period in permanent teeth in United States (US) general dental community practices and factors predictive of that survival. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing de-identified electronic dental record (EDR) data of patients who received a PCR in 99 general dentistry practices in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (Network). The final analyzed data set included 700,885 PCRs from 200,988 patients. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan Meier (product limit) estimator were performed to estimate the survival rate (defined as the PCR not receiving any subsequent treatment) after the first PCR was observed in the EDR during the study time. The Cox proportional hazards model was done to account for patient- and tooth-specific covariates. RESULTS: The overall median survival time was 13.3 years. The annual failure rates were 4.5-5.8 % for years 1-5; 5.3-5.7 %, 4.9-5.5 %, and 3.3-5.2 % for years 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20, respectively. The failure descriptions recorded for < 7 % failures were mostly caries (54 %) and broken or fractured tooth/restorations (23 %). The following variables significantly predicted PCR survival: number of surfaces that comprised the PCR; having at least one interproximal surface; tooth type; type of prior treatment received on the tooth; Network region; patient age and sex. Based on the magnitude of the multivariable estimates, no single factor predominated. CONCLUSIONS: This study of Network practices geographically distributed across the US observed PCR survival rates and predictive factors comparable to studies done in academic settings and outside the US. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Specific baseline factors significantly predict the survival of PCRs done in US community dental practices.

Learning from data in dentistry: Summary of the third annual OpenWide conference.

The overarching goal of the third scientific oral health symposium was to introduce the concept of a learning health system to the dental community and to identify and discuss cutting-edge research and strategies using data for improving the quality of dental care and patient safety. Conference participants included clinically active dentists, dental researchers, quality improvement experts, informaticians, insurers, EHR vendors/developers, and members of dental professional organizations and dental service organizations. This report summarizes the main outputs of the third annual OpenWide conference held in Houston, Texas, on October 12, 2022, as an affiliated meeting of the American Dental Association (ADA) 2022 annual conference.

Perspectives on the future of dissemination and implementation research in oral and craniofacial sciences.

Dissemination and implementation science is a field of research that promotes the adoption and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery and community settings and seeks to understand the processes by which such adoption and maintenance occur. While dissemination and implementation science is an established field in health services research, it is relatively new and making inroads in dental, oral and craniofacial research. This article summarizes the proceedings from a scientific panel on 'Dissemination and Implementation Science for Oral and Craniofacial Health' that was held during the international Behavioral and Social Oral Health Sciences Summit. The panelists were four experts on dissemination and implementation science in dental and non-dental academic settings in the United States and Scotland, with affiliations ranging from schools of dentistry and public health to the National Institutes of Health and a healthcare system with integrated dental services. The panel discussion addressed how dissemination and implementation science can be used to further oral health research. The narrative report presented here aims to describe the panelists' reflections and insights on their current initiatives in dissemination and implementation research to inform future research endeavors within the oral and craniofacial sciences. Specifically, this article focuses on six discussion topics: (1) how organizational determinants can serve as facilitators or barriers to the implementation of evidence-based dental practice; (2) how dentistry can 'de-implement' practices that are not effective; (3) how implementation science can support the delivery of evidence-based dental practice using adaptation; (4) how to get started in implementation science; (5) how the broader environment can support large-scale implementation efforts; and (6) how oral and craniofacial science is well suited for advancing dissemination and implementation research.

De-Implementing Opioids for Dental Extractions (DIODE): a multi-clinic, cluster-randomized trial of clinical decision support strategies in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain relievers are commonly prescribed following dental extractions, but evidence shows that non-opioid analgesics often provide adequate pain relief with fewer risks. The current study examined clinical decision support (CDS) as a tool for de-implementing opioid prescribing in dentistry. METHODS: This prospective, cluster-randomized trial examined CDS for dental pain management at 22 HealthPartners Dental Group clinics in Minnesota. Dental providers (n = 49) were randomized to deliver care using CDS, CDS with patient education materials (CDS-E), or standard practice (SP). Randomization was stratified by provider type (dentist vs. oral surgeon) and baseline opioid prescribing volume. Patient records of dental extractions were examined for January 2019 through May 2021, representing a 12-month baseline and 15-month intervention period (N = 12,924). Opioid prescription at the visit (no vs. yes) was the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, adjusting for patient sex and age, extraction complexity, and baseline prescribing strata (volume and provider type). RESULTS: Patients were 56.2% female, with a mean age of 46.7 (SD = 20.0) years. Providers were 8% oral surgeons, 57% female, and with a mean age of 43.7 (SD = 11.2) years. There were significant decreases in opioid prescribing during the study (P < 0.001), representing a continuation of pre-existing trends to reduce opioid prescribing in these dental practices. There were no significant differences in opioid prescribing between CDS and SP (OR = 1.29; 97.5% CI = 0.93, 1.79; P = 0.08), or CDS-E and SP arms (OR = 1.27; 97.5% CI = 0.86, 1.79; P = 0.18). The direction of the association favored greater reductions in opioid prescribing in the SP arm. Despite training and implementation support, utilization of the CDS was low, particularly among oral surgeons, who were significantly more likely than other dentists to prescribe opioids. Among non-oral surgeon providers with the opportunity to access it, CDS utilization was not significantly associated with opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Equipping dentists with CDS resources, whether alone or accompanied by patient education materials, did not accelerate reductions in opioid prescribing beyond those observed in standard practice. Strategies are needed to enhance CDS utilization for patient care and safety surrounding analgesia following dental extractions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03584789.

Periodontal treatment and subsequent clinical outcomes and medical care costs: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Periodontitis is a common oral disease associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CBVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). We studied if periodontitis treatment improves clinical outcomes and reduces medical care costs in patients with CAD, CBVD or T2D. METHODS: We used clinic records and claims data from a health care system to identify patients with periodontitis and CAD, CBVD or T2D, and to assess periodontal treatments, hospitalizations, medical costs (total, inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy), glycated hemoglobin, cardiovascular events, and death following concurrent disease diagnoses. We compared clinical outcomes according to receipt of periodontal treatment and/or maintenance care in the follow-up period, and care costs according to treatment status within one year following concurrent disease diagnoses, while adjusting for covariates. The data were analyzed in 2019-21. RESULTS: We identified 9,503 individuals, 4,057 of whom were in the CAD cohort; 3,247 in the CBVD cohort; and 4,879 in the T2D cohort. Patients who were selected and elected to receive treatment and maintenance care were less likely to be hospitalized than untreated individuals (CAD: OR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.92); CBVD: OR = 0.73 (0.56, 0.94); T2D: OR = 0.80 (0.64, 0.99)). Selection to treatment and/or maintenance care was not significantly associated with cardiovascular events, mortality, or glycated hemoglobin change. Total care costs did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups over 4 years. Treated patients experienced lower inpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with periodontitis and CAD, CBVD or T2D who were selected and elected to undergo periodontal treatment or maintenance care had lower rates of hospitalizations, but did not differ significantly from untreated individuals in terms of clinical outcomes or total medical care costs.

Practitioner/Practice- and Patient-Based Factors Contributing to Dental Practitioner Treatment Recommendations for Patients with Pain-Related TMDs: Findings from the National Dental PBRN.

AIMS: To document National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) practitioner treatment recommendations for patients with painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and to identify practitioner/practice- and patient-related factors contributing to treatment recommendations made at the initial clinical visit. METHODS: This prospective single-sample cohort study formed groups based on treatment recommendations made by 185 dental practitioners who treated 1,901 patients with painful TMDs. At the baseline visit, which this article describes, practitioners provided patients with their diagnoses and a treatment plan and then completed a comprehensive questionnaire. RESULTS: Self-care, an intraoral appliance, medication, and practitioner-recommended jaw exercises were the most frequently recommended treatments. Practitioners recommended multiple treatments to most patients. TMD signs, symptoms, and diagnoses were primary considerations in treatment planning, but the practitioner's expectations for improvement were only significant for intraoral appliances and self-care. Female practitioners and those with expertise in TMDs more frequently recommended patient-directed and multidisciplinary treatments compared to their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners used a wide range of treatments for patients with few consistent patterns. The propensity to use TMD signs, symptoms, and diagnoses when making treatment recommendations suggests a tendency to conceptualize patients using the biomedical model. Infrequent referral to nondental providers suggests a lack of availability of these providers, a misunderstanding of the complexity of TMDs, and/or discomfort with assessment of psychosocial factors. Implications include the need for comprehensive training in the assessment and management of TMD patients during dental school and participation in TMD continuing education courses following evidence-based guidelines.

Characteristics of dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: Our aims are to describe the characteristics of dentists, members of the US National Dental practice-based research network (PBRN) in the United States, and determine how often these dentists provide specific dental procedures. METHODS: Dentists completed a questionnaire when they enrolled in the Network about their demographic and training characteristics and characteristics of their practices and patients. Dentists also reported the frequency of providing specific dental procedures. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 4,483 dentists in active clinical practice, 34% identified as females, 70% as white, and 73% as general dentists. Most dentists practiced in large metropolitan areas (87%) and in solo or small practices (72%). On average, they reported about one-half of their patients were children or older adults, a third were from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and one-quarter were covered by public insurance. Most dentists routinely performed restorations and fixed prosthetics (78%), extractions (59%), removable (44%) and implant (40%) prosthetics, and endodontics on incisor and premolar teeth (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Dentists participating in the National Dental PBRN have much in common with dentists at large. The network has a broad representation of dentists, practice types, patient populations, and treatments offered, including diversity regarding race/ethnicity, gender, insurance, and geography of its practitioners and patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Characteristics of National Dental PBRN dentists suggest that a broad range of dentists is interested in participating in national-level research studies, thereby enabling an array of clinical study settings and topics that can optimize the generalizability of study findings.

Dental staff and patient attitudes about nicotine replacement therapy samples in dental care: A National Dental Practice-Based Research Network study.

OBJECTIVES: Cigarette smoking negatively affects oral health. Nicotine replacement therapies (NRT; e.g. nicotine patch or lozenge) and brief interventions (e.g. Ask-Advise-Refer; AAR) can improve cessation outcomes but are underutilized. NRT sampling (NRTS) increases NRT utilization by providing patients with samples of NRT as part of routine healthcare. Ask-Advise-Refer is a brief intervention where practitioners: ask patients about tobacco use, advise those using tobacco to quit and refer to the state quit line. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore dental care practitioners' and patients' attitudes and experiences regarding tobacco cessation treatment and perceptions of two brief intervention models, assessed separately: NRTS and AAR. METHODS: Twenty-four dental care practitioners and nine patients, recruited through the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network, participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Interviews assessed experiences with tobacco use intervention and attitudes towards NRTS and AAR. Thematic analysis identified emergent themes related to feasibility and acceptability of NRTS and AAR. RESULTS: Practitioners varied on how they address tobacco use, from systematically to idiosyncratically. Some practitioners recommend NRT; few had prescribed it. Practitioners had favourable attitudes towards AAR and NRTS, with most believing that both interventions would be acceptable and feasible to implement. Concerns regarding AAR were time and patient resistance to discussing tobacco use. Concerns regarding NRTS were patient resistance to using NRT, side effects or medication interactions, and capacity to provide follow-up. Patients reported that oral health practitioners generally ask about tobacco use but do not provide interventions. Patients were open to discussing their tobacco use with practitioners and had favourable attitudes about NRTS. CONCLUSIONS: This formative work suggests that NRTS and AAR may be feasible to implement in dental care settings. Future studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and implementation potential of NRTS in dental care settings.

Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Opioid Prescriptions for Dental Extractions using SMART on FHIR: Implementation Report.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to improve clinical decision-making consistent with evidence-based care. CDS can be designed to save health care providers time and help them provide safe and personalized analgesic prescribing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe the development of a CDS system designed to provide dentists with personalized pain management recommendations to reduce opioid prescribing following extractions. The use of CDS is also examined. METHODS: This study was conducted in HealthPartners, which uses an electronic health record (EHR) system that integrates both medical and dental information upon which the CDS application was developed based on SMART (Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies) on FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources). The various tools used to bring relevant medical conditions, medications, patient history, and other relevant data into the CDS interface are described. The CDS application runs a drug interaction algorithm developed by our organization and provides patient-specific recommendations. The CDS included access to the state Prescription Monitoring Program database. IMPLEMENTATION (RESULTS): The pain management CDS was implemented as part of a study examining opioid prescribing among patients undergoing dental extraction procedures from February 17, 2020, to May 14, 2021. Provider-level use of CDS at extraction encounters ranged from 0% to 87.4% with 12.1% of providers opening the CDS for no encounters, 39.4% opening the CDS for 1%-20% of encounters, 36.4% opening it for 21%-50% of encounters, and 12.1% opening it for 51%-87% of encounters. CONCLUSIONS: The pain management CDS is an EHR-embedded, provider-facing tool to help dentists make personalized pain management recommendations following dental extractions. The SMART on FHIR-based pain management CDS adapted well to the point-of-care dental setting and led to the design of a scalable CDS tool that is EHR vendor agnostic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03584789.

Strategies for developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to foster implementation into dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Professional and other organizations, including oral health care organizations, have been developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to help providers incorporate the best available evidence into their clinical decision making. Although the rigor of guideline development has increased over time, ongoing challenges prevent the full adoption of CPGs into clinical practices that experience variability in provider expertise and opinion, patient flow pace, and use of electronic dental records. These challenges include lack of relevant evidence, failure to keep guidelines up to date, and failure to adopt strategies aimed at overcoming the barriers preventing implementation into clinical practice. RESULTS: This article provides a brief overview of strategies that can be used to overcome common challenges to guideline adoption. Such strategies include creating evidence-based CPGs that use additional sources of evidence and methods to inform guideline development and accelerate the guideline updating and dissemination process (that is, evidence directly from clinical practice, big data, patients' values and preferences, and living guidelines) and applying implementation strategies that have been documented as improving translation of CPGs into routine clinical practice (that is, guideline implementability, implementation science, and computable guidelines). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Adopting newer strategies for developing and translating evidence into practice could lead to improvements in patient care and population health.