Barriers to sealant guideline implementation within a multi-site managed care dental practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice to implementing the American Dental Association's recommendation for sealing noncavitated occlusal carious lesions as established in their 2016 pit-and-fissure sealant clinical practice guideline. Although previous research has identified barriers to using sealants perceived by dentists in private practice, barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in large, multi-site dental practices have yet to be identified. Identifying barriers for these dentists is important, because it is expected that in the future, the multi-site group practice configuration will comprise more dental practices. METHODS: We anonymously surveyed the 110 general and pediatric dentists at a multi-site dental practice in the U.S. The survey assessed potential barriers in three domains: practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 62%. The principal barrier characterizing the practice environment was concern regarding liability; endorsed by 33% of the dentists. Many barriers of prevailing opinion were frequently endorsed. These included misunderstanding the standard of practice (59%), being unaware of the expectations of opinion leaders (56%) including being unaware of the guideline itself (67%), and being unaware of what is currently being taught in dental schools (58%). Finally, barriers of knowledge and attitudes were frequently endorsed. These included having suboptimal skill in applying sealants (23% - 47%) and lacking knowledge regarding the relative efficacy of the different ways to manage noncavitated occlusal carious lesions (50%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice relating to the practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. All the barriers we identified have the potential to be addressed by implementation strategies. Future studies should devise and test implementation strategies to target these barriers.

Some But Not All Psychosocial Factors Are Correlated With Oral Hygiene Behavior Among Children Age 9 to 19 Years.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Psychosocial correlates of oral hygiene behaviour in people aged 9 to 19 - a systematic review with meta-analysis. Scheerman JFM, van Loveren C, van Meijel B, Dusseldorp E, Wartewig E, Verrips GHW, Ket JCF, van Empelen P. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2016;44(4):331-41. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Information not available TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.

Smoking tobacco products daily may increase adults' caries increment over 4 years.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Daily smoking and 4-year caries increment in Finnish adults. Bernabé E, Delgado-Angulo EK, Vehkalahti MM, Aromaa A, Suominen AL. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014;42(5):428-34. REVIEWER: Deborah E. Polk, PhD PURPOSE/QUESTION: Does daily smoking increase an adult's caries increment over 4 years? SOURCE OF FUNDING: Health 2000 SURVEY: Government: National Institute for Health and Welfare, Non-profits: Finnish Dental Society Apollonia, Finnish Dental Association, Follow-Up Study on Finnish Adults' Oral Health: Government: National Institute for Health and Welfare, Social Insurance Institution of Finland. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Cohort study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2: limited-quality patient-oriented evidence STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION GRADE: Not applicable.

Trajectories of opioid prescribing by general dentists, specialists, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, 2015-2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite decreases in opioid prescribing from 2016 through 2019, some dentists (general, specialists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the United States continue to prescribe opioids at high rates. The authors' objective was to define dentists' trajectories of opioid prescribing. METHODS: The authors identified actively prescribing dentists from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription data set, from 2015 through 2019. Group-based trajectory modeling identified opioid prescribing trajectories on the basis of dentists' annual prescribing rates for the overall sample (model 1) and for high prescribers (model 2). The authors used χ2 or Mann-Whitney U tests to characterize the model 2 trajectory groups. RESULTS: In model 1 (n = 199,145 prescribers), group-based trajectory modeling identified 8 trajectories that were grouped into 5 categories. A total of 14.8% were nonprescribers who composed less than 1% of all prescriptions, low prescribers (3 groups; 46.0%) prescribed at low rates (2015: 5.5%-16.9%; 2019: 1.5%-11.9%), decliners (7.3%) decreased prescribing rapidly (2015: 29.4%; 2019: 5.1%), moderately high prescribers (2 groups; 28.5%) prescribed moderately (2015: 28.7% and 39.2%; 2019: 18.1% and 28.8%), and consistently high prescribers (3.4%) prescribed at high rates (2015: 54.6%; 2019: 44.7%). In model 2, from consistently high prescribers (n = 6,845), 4 trajectories were identified. Of these 4 groups, 1 group (7.5%) declined prescribing rapidly. The groups did not differ meaningfully; however, the rapid decliners included fewer oral and maxillofacial surgeons (13.0% vs 18.4%), saw more Medicaid patients (2.5% vs 1.0%), and had higher opioid prescribing rates in 2015 (95.5% vs 91.6%) (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified variations in dentists' opioid prescribing rates. Although 60% of dentists decreased prescribing rates by 30% through 83%, 3.4% of dentists consistently prescribed at high rates. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some dentists continue to prescribe opioids at high levels, indicating that additional information is needed to better inform policy and clinical decision making.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in adolescents, adults, and older adults: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults.

Utilizing deliberative engagement for identifying implementation strategy priorities: lessons learned from an online deliberative forum with dental professionals.

BACKGROUND: Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. We are drawing on data collected during the DISGO study to reflect on barriers we encountered in implementing a deliberative engagement process for discussing implementation strategies relevant to the evidence-based guideline targeted in this intervention. The goal is to identify factors that may influence the success of deliberative engagement as a technique to involve healthcare staff in identifying priorities for implementation strategies. METHODS: We drew on online chat transcripts from the deliberative engagement forums collected during the DISGO study. The chat transcripts were automatically generated for each discussion and captured the written exchanges between participants and moderators in all participating dental clinics. Chat transcripts were analyzed following a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Our findings revealed barriers to the successful implementation of deliberative engagement in the context of the DISGO study. Participants were not familiar with the materials that had been prepared for the forum and lacked familiarity with the topic of deliberation. Participants also did not share divergent viewpoints and reinforced existing ideas rather than introducing new ideas. CONCLUSIONS: In order to ensure that obstacles that were encountered in this study are not repeated, it is important to carefully consider how staff can effectively be prepared for the deliberations. Participants must be familiar with the content of the guideline, and most questions about the content and evidence should be answered before the deliberative engagement sessions. If perspectives among staff on a guideline are homogenous, briefing materials should introduce perspectives that complement existing views among staff. It is also necessary to create an environment in which staff are comfortable introducing opinions that may not be held by the majority of colleagues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730 .

Sharing voice during deliberative engagement to improve guideline adherence in dental clinics: findings from a qualitative evaluation of an online deliberative forum discussion.

OBJECTIVES: Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. For this research project, an online deliberative forum brought together staff from dental clinics to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies and barriers to implementation of a component of a dental (pit-and-fissure) guideline. The goal was to determine whether deliberative engagement enabled participants' sharing of promotive and prohibitive voice about implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of online chat transcripts of facilitated deliberations from 31 small group sessions. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Dental (KP Dental) in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: All staff from 16 dental offices. RESULTS: The directed content analysis revealed that participants shared prohibitive and promotive voice when offering critique of the barriers and the implementation strategies suggested by the researchers. The analysis also revealed that the focus of the deliberations often was not on the aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline intended by the research team for deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The deliberative forum discussions were a productive venue to ask staff in dental clinics to share their perspectives on strategies to promote guideline-concordant care as well as barriers. Participants demonstrated prohibitive voice and engaged critically with the materials the research team had put together. An important limitation of the deliberation was that the discussion often centred around an aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline that already was implemented well. To ensure a deliberation oriented towards resolving challenging aspects of the pit-and-fissure guideline, greater familiarity with the guideline would have been important, as well as more intimate knowledge of the current discrepancies in guideline-concordant care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 18 December 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Testing a Deliberative Democracy Engagement Intervention to Increase Guideline-Concordance Among Oral Health Providers: Results from the DISGO Cluster-Randomized, Stepped-Wedge Trial.

Background: Dental caries affects billions worldwide and in the U.S. is among the most prevalent noncommunicable diseases in both children and adults. Early in the caries process, it can be arrested by dental sealants, which are non-invasive and thus tooth sparing, however, few dentists have adopted this approach. Deliberative engagement processes enable participants to engage with diverse perspectives on a policy issue and develop and share with policy makers informed opinions about the policy issue. We examined the effects of a deliberative engagement process on the ability of oral health providers to endorse implementation interventions and to apply dental sealants. Methods: Using a stepped wedge design, 16 dental clinics were cluster randomized, and 680 providers and staff were exposed to a deliberative engagement process that included an introductory session, workbook, facilitated small group deliberative forum, and post-forum survey. Forum participants were assigned to forums to ensure diverse role representation. Mechanisms of action examined included sharing voice and diversity of opinion. Three months after each clinic's forum, the clinic manager was interviewed about implementation interventions deployed. There were 98 clinic-months in the non-intervention period and 101 clinic-months in the intervention period. Results: Compared with providers and staff in small clinics, providers and staff in medium and large clinics more strongly agreed that their clinic should adopt two of the three proposed implementation interventions targeting the first barrier and one of the two proposed implementation interventions targeting the second barrier. Compared with the non-intervention period, in the intervention period providers did not place more sealants on occlusal non-cavitated carious lesions. Survey respondents reported sharing both promotive and prohibitive voice. From the beginning to the end of the forums, most forum participants did not change their opinions about the possible implementation interventions. At the end of the forums, there was no significant within-group variability in implementation interventions endorsed. Conclusions: Deliberative engagement intervention may help clinic leadership identify implementation interventions when there is a challenging problem, a network of semi-autonomous clinics, and autonomous providers within those clinics. It remains to be determined whether there is a range of perspectives within clinics. Trial Registration: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Injectable and topical local anesthetics for acute dental pain: 2 systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthesia is essential for pain control in dentistry. The authors assessed the comparative effect of local anesthetics on acute dental pain after tooth extraction and in patients with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US Clinical Trials registry through November 21, 2020. The authors included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long- vs short-acting injectable anesthetics to reduce pain after tooth extraction (systematic review 1) and evaluated the effect of topical anesthetics in patients with symptomatic pulpitis (systematic review 2). Pairs of reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The authors assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs comparing long- vs short-acting local anesthetics suggest that bupivacaine may decrease the use of rescue analgesia and may not result in additional adverse effects (low certainty evidence). Bupivacaine probably reduces the amount of analgesic consumption compared with lidocaine with epinephrine (mean difference, -1.91 doses; 95% CI, -3.35 to -0.46; moderate certainty) and mepivacaine (mean difference, -1.58 doses; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.95; moderate certainty). Five RCTs suggest that both benzocaine 10% and 20% may increase the number of people experiencing pain reduction compared with placebo when managing acute irreversible pulpitis (low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bupivacaine may be superior to lidocaine with epinephrine and mepivacaine with regard to time to and amount of analgesic consumption. Benzocaine may be superior to placebo in reducing pain for 20 through 30 minutes after application.

Analgesics for the management of acute dental pain in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, -0.19 points; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, -0.13 points; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, -0.75 points; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, -0.01 points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Several pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.

Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: A guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years). TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.

Heritable patterns of tooth decay in the permanent dentition: principal components and factor analyses.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is the result of a complex interplay among environmental, behavioral, and genetic factors, with distinct patterns of decay likely due to specific etiologies. Therefore, global measures of decay, such as the DMFS index, may not be optimal for identifying risk factors that manifest as specific decay patterns, especially if the risk factors such as genetic susceptibility loci have small individual effects. We used two methods to extract patterns of decay from surface-level caries data in order to generate novel phenotypes with which to explore the genetic regulation of caries. METHODS: The 128 tooth surfaces of the permanent dentition were scored as carious or not by intra-oral examination for 1,068 participants aged 18 to 75 years from 664 biological families. Principal components analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA), two methods of identifying underlying patterns without a priori surface classifications, were applied to our data. RESULTS: The three strongest caries patterns identified by PCA recaptured variation represented by DMFS index (correlation, r = 0.97), pit and fissure surface caries (r = 0.95), and smooth surface caries (r = 0.89). However, together, these three patterns explained only 37% of the variability in the data, indicating that a priori caries measures are insufficient for fully quantifying caries variation. In comparison, the first pattern identified by FA was strongly correlated with pit and fissure surface caries (r = 0.81), but other identified patterns, including a second pattern representing caries of the maxillary incisors, were not representative of any previously defined caries indices. Some patterns identified by PCA and FA were heritable (h(2) = 30-65%, p = 0.043-0.006), whereas other patterns were not, indicating both genetic and non-genetic etiologies of individual decay patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the use of decay patterns as novel phenotypes to assist in understanding the multifactorial nature of dental caries.

Genome-wide association scan of dental caries in the permanent dentition.

BACKGROUND: Over 90% of adults aged 20 years or older with permanent teeth have suffered from dental caries leading to pain, infection, or even tooth loss. Although caries prevalence has decreased over the past decade, there are still about 23% of dentate adults who have untreated carious lesions in the US. Dental caries is a complex disorder affected by both individual susceptibility and environmental factors. Approximately 35-55% of caries phenotypic variation in the permanent dentition is attributable to genes, though few specific caries genes have been identified. Therefore, we conducted the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify genes affecting susceptibility to caries in adults. METHODS: Five independent cohorts were included in this study, totaling more than 7000 participants. For each participant, dental caries was assessed and genetic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) were genotyped or imputed across the entire genome. Due to the heterogeneity among the five cohorts regarding age, genotyping platform, quality of dental caries assessment, and study design, we first conducted genome-wide association (GWA) analyses on each of the five independent cohorts separately. We then performed three meta-analyses to combine results for: (i) the comparatively younger, Appalachian cohorts (N = 1483) with well-assessed caries phenotype, (ii) the comparatively older, non-Appalachian cohorts (N = 5960) with inferior caries phenotypes, and (iii) all five cohorts (N = 7443). Top ranking genetic loci within and across meta-analyses were scrutinized for biologically plausible roles on caries. RESULTS: Different sets of genes were nominated across the three meta-analyses, especially between the younger and older age cohorts. In general, we identified several suggestive loci (P-value ≤ 10E-05) within or near genes with plausible biological roles for dental caries, including RPS6KA2 and PTK2B, involved in p38-depenedent MAPK signaling, and RHOU and FZD1, involved in the Wnt signaling cascade. Both of these pathways have been implicated in dental caries. ADMTS3 and ISL1 are involved in tooth development, and TLR2 is involved in immune response to oral pathogens. CONCLUSIONS: As the first GWAS for dental caries in adults, this study nominated several novel caries genes for future study, which may lead to better understanding of cariogenesis, and ultimately, to improved disease predictions, prevention, and/or treatment.

Opioid prescribing by oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, 2016-2019.

OBJECTIVE: To describe opioid prescribing trends among oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS). METHODS: Prescriptions by OMFS were identified from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Dataset, 2016-2019. OMFS-based, patient-based and population-based prescribing rates and changes in high-risk opioid prescribing were calculated annually. We used linear regression to describe trends. RESULTS: There were 13.9 million opioid prescriptions among 12.5 million patients (627 prescriptions/OMFS/year). Hydrocodone and oxycodone decreased by 20.9% and 39.2% (p < 0.05), while tramadol and codeine increased by 24.3% and 6.1% (p < 0.05), respectively. Opioid prescribing rates significantly decreased by 27 prescriptions/OMFS/year, 18.6 patients/OMFS/year and by 0.9 prescriptions/100,000 population/year (p < 0.05 for all). From 2016 to 2019, the proportion of opioids >3 days decreased by 54.2% (p < 0.05) and prescriptions ≥50 MME/day decreased by 66.3% (p < 0.05). Although the number of opioid prescriptions by OMFS decreased in most states, 12% of states experienced increases. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescribing, especially high-risk prescribing, by OMFS has decreased. However, targeted interventions are warranted in some areas.

Applying a scoping review approach for identifying effective implementation strategies in oral health settings.

Dental service providers have limited capacity to identify strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We developed a rigorous yet parsimonious scoping review approach to identify, select, and rate implementation strategies based on an oral health system context. From 153 strategies identified, we selected the top 11 strategies, which had a moderate level of support of evidence and where managers were the main actors. The main actions were to educate, remind, structure, and influence. Targets included dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants and managers from a large prepaid dental care delivery system. This approach responds to calls for rapid and innovative methods to implement EBPs in oral health.

Study protocol: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial of the effectiveness of a deliberative loop in identifying implementation strategies for the adoption of a dental sealant guideline in dental clinics.

BACKGROUND: The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends dental providers apply dental sealants to the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars for the prevention or treatment of non-cavitated dental caries. Despite the evidence-based support for this guideline, adherence among general dentists is low, ranging from less than 5 to 38.5%. Thus, an evidence-to-practice gap exists, and it is unclear which implementation strategies would best support providers in adopting and implementing the evidence-based practice. One potential approach to selecting and tailoring implementation strategies is a deliberative loop process, a stakeholder-engaged approach to decision-making. This trial aims to test the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of using a deliberative loop intervention with stakeholders (i.e., providers and staff) to enable managers to select implementation strategies that facilitate the adoption of an evidence-based dental practice. METHODS: Sixteen dental clinics within Kaiser Permanente Northwest Dental will be cluster randomized to determine the timing of receiving the intervention in this stepped-wedge trial. In the three-part deliberative loop intervention, clinic stakeholders engage in the following activities: (1) receive background information, (2) participate in facilitated small-group discussions designed to promote learning from each other's lived experiences and develop informed opinions about effective clinic-level implementation strategies, and (3) share their informed opinions with clinic leaders, who may then choose to select and deploy implementation strategies based on the stakeholders' informed opinions. The primary outcome of Reach will be defined as patient-level receipt of guideline-concordant care. Secondary outcomes will include the cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of the deliberative loop process. Implementation strategies deployed will be catalogued over time. DISCUSSION: These results will establish the extent to which the deliberative loop process can help leaders select and tailor implementation strategies with the goal of improving guideline-concordant dental care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

How information systems should support the information needs of general dentists in clinical settings: suggestions from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in designing useful clinical information systems in dentistry is to incorporate clinical evidence based on dentists' information needs and then integrate the system seamlessly into the complex clinical workflow. However, little is known about the actual information needs of dentists during treatment sessions. The purpose of this study is to identify general dentists' information needs and the information sources they use to meet those needs in clinical settings so as to inform the design of dental information systems. METHODS: A semi-structured interview was conducted with a convenience sample of 18 general dentists in the Pittsburgh area during clinical hours. One hundred and five patient cases were reported by these dentists. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis with a constant comparative method to identify categories and themes regarding information needs and information source use patterns. RESULTS: Two top-level categories of information needs were identified: foreground and background information needs. To meet these needs, dentists used four types of information sources: clinical information/tasks, administrative tasks, patient education and professional development. Major themes of dentists' unmet information needs include: (1) timely access to information on various subjects; (2) better visual representations of dental problems; (3) access to patient-specific evidence-based information; and (4) accurate, complete and consistent documentation of patient records. Resource use patterns include: (1) dentists' information needs matched information source use; (2) little use of electronic sources took place during treatment; (3) source use depended on the nature and complexity of the dental problems; and (4) dentists routinely practiced cross-referencing to verify patient information. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists have various information needs at the point of care. Among them, the needs for better visual representation and patient-specific evidence-based information are mostly unmet. While patient records and support staff remain the most used information sources, electronic sources other than electronic dental records (EDR) are rarely utilized during patient visits. For future development of dental information or clinical decision-support systems, developers should consider integrating high-quality, up-to-date clinical evidence into comprehensive and easily accessible EDRs as well as supporting dentists' resource use patterns as identified in the study.

Barriers to implementing evidence-based clinical guidelines: a survey of early adopters.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify barriers that early-adopting dentists perceive as common and challenging when implementing recommendations from evidence-based (EB) clinical guidelines. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study. Dentists who attended the 2008 Evidence-based Dentistry Champion Conference were eligible for inclusion. Forty-three dentists (34%) responded to a 22-item questionnaire administered online. Two investigators independently coded and categorized responses to open-ended items. Descriptive statistics were computed to assess the frequency of barriers and perceived challenges. RESULTS: The most common barriers to implementation were difficulty in changing current practice model, resistance and criticism from colleagues, and lack of trust in evidence or research. Barriers perceived as serious problems had to do with lack of up-to-date evidence, lack of clear answers to clinical questions, and contradictory information in the scientific literature. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of barriers will help improve translation of biomedical research for dentists. Information in guidelines needs to be current, clear, and simplified for use at chairside; dentists' fears need to be addressed.

Associations between practice patterns and dental education in special care dentistry.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to determine whether alumni who completed training in the Center for Patients with Special Needs (CPSN) feel more prepared and treat more patients with special healthcare needs (SHCN) than alumni who completed training prior to the establishment of the Center (pre-CPSN). METHODS: Alumni graduating in 2000-2017 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine (Pitt Dental Medicine) completed a survey addressing how well their dental school training prepared them to treat patients with SHCN and their current practice patterns as dental professionals. Alumni completed self-reported questionnaires online or on paper by mail. RESULTS: The authors obtained a 16% response rate (N = 209; nPre-CPSN = 75; nCPSN = 134). Compared with the pre-CPSN alumni, CPSN alumni reported feeling more prepared in all 12 skills surveyed (t = 4.86, P < 0.05). There was a 0.85-point difference between groups, on average, across the 12 skills. However, CPSN alumni were no more likely to treat individuals with SHCN than the pre-CPSN alumni. CONCLUSIONS: Information obtained from this survey supports the hypothesis that experience is associated with perceptions of preparedness and raises new questions about factors associated with deciding whether to treat or refer. This information may inform schools of the amount of training necessary to reach preparedness goals.