"I'm Torn": Qualitative Analysis of Dental Practitioner-Perceived Barriers, Facilitators, and Solutions to HPV Vaccine Promotion.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine can prevent HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers. Dental practitioners are uniquely positioned to promote HPV vaccines during routine dental care but experience barriers to doing so. Qualitative interviews were conducted with dental practitioners to understand barriers and inform intervention strategies to promote HPV vaccines. Dental practitioners were invited to participate in phone interviews about knowledge, self-efficacy, and the fear of negative consequences related to HPV vaccine promotion as well as feedback on potential interventions to address these barriers. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis with a sort-and-sift matrix approach. Interviews were completed with 11 practitioners from six dental clinics (avg. 31 min). Though most thought HPV vaccination was important, they lacked detailed knowledge about when and to whom the vaccine should be recommended. This led to a hypothesized need for discussions of sexual history, feelings of limited self-efficacy to make the recommendation, and fear of patient concerns. Still, practitioners were supportive of additional training opportunities and provided input into specific interventions. The nuance of how these barriers were described by practitioners, as well as the possible solutions they identified, will help shape future interventions supporting HPV vaccine promotion in dental care.

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.

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.

Interexaminer Agreement in the Radiologic Identification of Apical Periodontitis/Rarefying Osteitis in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network PREDICT Endodontic Study.

INTRODUCTION: Periapical images are routinely made in endodontics to support diagnosis and treatment decisions, but conventional imaging may not readily demonstrate inflammatory changes. This study aims to quantify disagreement in the radiologic interpretation of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis between 2 expert examiners and to determine if differences exist based on anatomic location. METHODS: We used 1717 pretreatment periapical images made before orthograde endodontic treatment as part of the Predicting Outcomes of Root Canal Treatment (PREDICT) study conducted within the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Periapical changes were assessed independently by 2 board-certified specialists, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist and an endodontist, blinded to other clinical information. If the examiners disagreed about whether a diagnosis of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis was justified, an adjudication was made by a third examiner. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of this radiologic diagnosis in the periapical images was 55%, and interexaminer agreement measured with the Cohen kappa statistic was calculated to be 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.60). Diagnostic disagreements between the 2 examiners occurred for 377 teeth (22%), with disagreements more frequent for jaw location (P = .038) and tooth type (P = .021). Differences between root number (P = .058) and jaw location and tooth groups (P = .069) were found not to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of diagnostic disagreements across anatomic location and tooth type may reflect the inability of periapical images to reveal bone changes masked by the complexity and density of overlying anatomic structures, a limitation that could potentially be overcome with the use of 3-dimensional imaging.

Dental hygiene workforce issues: a Minnesota study.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to explore the prevalence and reasons for withdrawal from the dental hygiene workforce. The study also assessed the reasons for maintaining an active license after withdrawal, and the factors that might entice an individual to return to the dental hygiene workforce. METHODS: A random sample was selected of dental hygienists licensed in Minnesota from the November 2003 State Board of Dentistry's dental hygiene licensing file. Data was collected from a mailed questionnaire containing 45 open-ended and close-ended questions. The final sample included 2672 dental hygienists actively licensed and residing in Minnesota. One thousand four hundred and twenty responded to the survey, for a response rate of 53%. From that sample, 129 participants indicated that they were licensed to practice in Minnesota but were not currently working (had withdrawn from the workforce). This study focuses on the responses of those 129 individuals. RESULTS: The prevalence of withdrawal was 9%, with the majority of the participants indicating that they did not plan to return to the dental hygiene workforce. The primary reason for withdrawal was child-rearing responsibilities, followed by health-related reasons, and pursuing a different career. A key difference between those who were active participants in the workforce and those who had withdrawn was related to income. The results of this study found that financial difficulties, death/disability of a spouse, and having older children were the primary factors that would entice a respondent to return as an active participant to the dental hygiene workforce. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that dental hygiene workforce issues are of great complexity and are multifactorial in nature. The findings tend to confirm the results of previous work. It can be concluded that because of the nature of the work and the demands of the profession, it is likely that movement in and out of the dental hygiene workforce will continue to be an issue in the profession.