ABSTRACT
Better understanding of dentists' decision-making about defective restorations is needed to close the evidence-practice gap (EPG). This study aimed to quantify the EPG about defective restorations and identify dentist factors associated with this EPG. Methods: 216 dentists from São Paulo State, Brazil, completed a questionnaire about three clinical case scenarios involving defective composite restorations with cementum-dentin margins (case 1) and enamel margins (case 2), and an amalgam (case 3) restoration. Dentists were asked what treatment, if any, they would recommend, including preventive treatment, polishing, re-surfacing, or repairing the restoration, or replacing the entire restoration. Replacing the entire restoration in any of these three scenarios was classified as inconsistent with the evidence, comprising an EPG. Bivariate analyses using Chi-square, ANOVA, or multiple comparison tests were performed (p<.05). Results: for defective composite restorations, 49% and 55% of dentists chose to replace the entire restoration for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of dentists chose to replace the entire amalgam restoration. Dentists were significantly more likely to choose to replace the defective amalgam restoration than the composite restoration with a defect at the cementum-dentin margins or the enamel margins (both at p < .001). Female dentists were more likely to choose a conservative treatment than male dentists for cases 1 (p=.034) and 2 (p=.009). Dentists with a higher percentage of patients interested in individualized caries prevention were also more conservative in case 1 (p=.045). Conclusion: a substantial EPG regarding treatment decisions for defective restorations exists, especially for composite restorations. This study adds to the international evidence that an EPG exists in this clinical area and that global strategies need to be developed to close the gap
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Composite Resins , Dental Restoration Failure , Dental Amalgam , Dentists/statistics & numerical data , Dental Restoration Repair/methods , Professional Practice Gaps/statistics & numerical data , Brazil , Cross-Sectional Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Dental Caries/therapyABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Little is known about how Brazilian dentists' treatment decisions for proximal carious lesions are compared to current evidence-based recommendations, so better understanding is needed to close any potential evidence-practice gap. Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the evidence-practice gap about proximal carious lesions treatment and identify dentist factors associated with this evidence-practice gap. Methods: Brazilian dentists (n=214) from Araraquara, São Paulo State, "completed a questionnaire about their dentist and practice characteristics and a translated version of the "Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment" from the U.S. National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Five radiographic images of proximal carious lesions in low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios were used. Associations between treatment recommendations and lesion, dentist, and practice characteristics were tested for statistical significance (p<0.05). Results: Lesions confined to the enamel would be restored by 35% and 71% of dentists in the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios, respectively, suggesting a substantial evidence-practice gap given that surgical intervention of enamel lesions is not consistent with current evidence. The lesion depth threshold to recommend a permanent restoration differed between the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios (p<0.001). Specific dentist/practice characteristics (dentist gender, graduate of a public dental school, postgraduate training, use of caries risk assessment) were significantly associated with the evidence-practice gap, but the magnitude of these differences was not major Conclusion: A substantial evidence-practice gap in treatment of proximal carious lesions was found for the sample overall, even when clinical scenarios presented low-risk patients. Global strategies are needed to close this substantial evidence-practice gap.
RESUMO Pouco se sabe se as decisões de tratamento dos dentistas brasileiros para lesões cariosas proximais são comparadas às recomendações atuais baseadas em evidências, portanto, é necessário um melhor entendimento para fechar qualquer potencial lacuna entre a evidência e a prática. Purpose: Este estudo transversal teve como objetivo quantificar a lacuna entre a evidência e a prática na decisão de tratamento das lesões cariosas proximais e identificar os fatores associados a essa lacuna entre a evidência e a prática. Methods: Cirurgiões-dentistas brasileiros (n=214) de Araraquara, Estado de São Paulo, preencheram um questionário sobre suas características odontológicas e clínicas e uma versão traduzida do "Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment" da U.S. National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Cinco imagens radiográficas de lesões cariosas proximais em cenários de pacientes de baixo risco e alto risco foram usadas. Associações entre recomendações de tratamento e lesão, dentista e características da prática foram testadas (p<0,05). Results: As lesões confinadas ao esmalte seriam restauradas por 35% e 71% dos dentistas nos cenários de pacientes de baixo risco e alto risco, respectivamente, sugerindo uma lacuna entre a evidência e a prática substancial, dado que a intervenção cirúrgica das lesões do esmalte não é consistente com as evidências atuais. O limiar de profundidade da lesão para recomendar uma restauração permanente diferiu entre os cenários de pacientes de baixo risco e alto risco (p<0,001). Características específicas do dentista/prática (sexo do dentista, graduado em uma faculdade pública, pós-graduação, uso da avaliação de risco de cárie) foram significativamente associadas à lacuna entre a evidência e a prática, mas a magnitude dessas diferenças não foi importante. Conclusions: uma lacuna entre a evidência e a prática substancial na decisão de tratamento de lesões cariosas proximais foi encontrada para a amostra como um todo, mesmo quando os cenários clínicos apresentavam pacientes de baixo risco. Estratégias globais são necessárias para fechar essa lacuna entre a evidência e a prática.
ABSTRACT
Little is known about dental practice patterns of caries prevention in adults among Brazilian dentists. Aim: To quantify procedures used for caries prevention for adult patients among dentists from a Brazilian community. Methods: Dentists (n=197) who reported that at least 10% of their patients are more than 18 years old participated in the first Brazilian study that used a translated version of the "Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment" from the U.S. National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. A questionnaire about characteristics of their practice and patient population were also completed by the dentists. Generalized linear regression models and a hierarchal clustering procedure were used (p<0.05). Results: In-office fluoride application was the preventive method most often reported. The main predictors for recommending some preventive agent were: female dentist (dental sealant; in-office fluoride; non-prescription fluoride) and percentage of patients interested in caries prevention (dental sealant; in-office fluoride; non-prescription fluoride). Other predictors included private practice (dental sealant), percentage of patients 65 years or older (in-office fluoride), graduation from a private dental school (non-prescription fluoride), years since dental school graduation (chlorhexidine rinse) and using a preventive method (recommending sealant/fluoride/chlorhexidine rinse/sugarless, xylitol gum). Cluster analysis showed that dentists in the largest subgroup seldom used any of the preventive agents. Conclusion: Dentists most often reported in-office fluoride as a method for caries prevention in adults. Some practitioner, practice and patients' characteristics were positively associated with more-frequent use of a preventive agent