Occurrence and Predictors of Postoperative Preauricular and Masticatory Muscle Pain Symptoms After Surgical Removal of Third Molars: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Dental Assistants Supporting the Mandible and the Restful Jaw Device.

BACKGROUND: During third molar removal, the mandible is supported by a dental assistant (DA) to counter downward forces during surgery, and with sedation, to maintain airway patency. The Restful Jaw device (PEP Design; Saint Paul) provides this support instead of the DA. PURPOSE: This study compared the occurrence of postoperative preauricular and masticatory muscle pain symptoms (PMMPS) between the device and DAs providing mandibular support, using two outcome measures. Secondary aims identify predictors of outcome and providers' opinions of the device. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: In this multisite, single-blind, two-arm parallel randomized trial, participants without preoperative PMMPS had surgical removal of third molars, with sedation and bite blocks were randomly assigned to manual support or the device. EXPOSURE VARIABLE: The exposed group was randomly assigned to the device and the nonexposed group to manual support. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): The primary outcome was patient-reported PMMPS. Two secondary outcomes were pain assessed with the temporomandibular disorder Pain Screener and providers' views on the device. Outcomes were assessed at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postsurgery. COVARIATES: The covariates are baseline demographics (eg, sex), clinical characteristics (eg, eruption status), and third molar surgeries. ANALYSES: For occurrence of pain, generalized estimating equations assessed differences between groups. Logistic regression analysis assessed predictors of pain at 1 month, per the Screener. The level for statistical significance was 5%. RESULTS: Enrollment was 86 and 83 participants in the device and DA groups, respectively. The average age was 20.8 years; the majority were female (65%) and Caucasian (66%). The retention rate was ≥95.9%. The groups did not differ significantly for occurrence of pain using the primary and secondary outcome measures at any follow-up (P ≥ .46). Fully impacted molars were associated with occurrence of pain (odds ratio = 3.44; 95% confidence interval 1.49-7.92; P = .004). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Occurrence of pain using the primary and secondary outcome measures did not differ significantly between groups at any follow-up and was associated with removal of fully impacted third molars. Four out of five surgeons reported wanting to use the device on a regular basis when performing this procedure in sedated patients.

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.

Dental Decision Simulation (DDSim): Development of a virtual training environment.

PURPOSE: Case-based simulations are powerful training tools that can enhance learning and drive behavior change. This is an overview of the design/development of Dental Decision Simulation (DDSim), a web-based simulation of an electronic dental record (EDR). The purpose was to use DDSim to train dentists to make evidence-based treatment planning decisions consistent with current evidence. This simulated EDR provides case-based information in support of a set of defined evidence-based learning objectives. METHODS: The development of this complex simulation model required coordinated efforts to create several components: identify behavior changes, case authoring mechanism, create virtual patient visits, require users to make treatment plan decisions related to learning objectives, and a feedback mechanism to help users recognize departures from those learning objectives. This simulation was evaluated in a 2-arm, clinic-randomized, controlled pilot study examining the extent to which DDSim changed dentists' planned treatment to conform to evidence-based treatment guidelines relative to change in dentists not exposed to DDSim. Outcomes were measured by comparing preintervention and postintervention patient EDR treatment data. RESULTS: Changes in behavior over time did not favor intervention or control clinics. CONCLUSION: DDSim provides a standardized learning platform that cannot be achieved through the use of live patients. Both live patients and case-based simulations can be used to transfer knowledge and skill development. DDSim offers the advantage of providing a platform for developing treatment planning skills in a low-risk environment. However, further research examining behavior change is needed.

Electronic and paper mode of data capture when assessing patient-reported outcomes in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

AIM: Our objectives were to describe the approach used in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network to capture patient-reported outcomes and to compare electronic and paper modes of data capture in a specific network study. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study of 1862 patients with dentin hypersensitivity. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed based on patients' perception of pain using Visual Analog Scales and Labeled Magnitude scales at baseline and at 1, 4 and 8 weeks post-baseline. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of study patients chose to complete follow-up assessments via an electronic mode; 15% completed them via a paper mode. There was not a significant difference in the proportions of patients who completed the 8-week assessment when comparing the electronic mode to the paper mode (92% vs. 90.8%, P = 0.31, Rao-Scott clustered χ2 -test). CONCLUSION: The electronic mode of data capture was as operational as the traditional paper mode, while also providing the advantage of eliminating data entry errors, not involving site research coordinators in measuring the patient-reported outcomes, and not incurring cost and potential delays due to mailing study forms. Electronic data capture of patient reported outcomes could be successfully implemented in the community dental practice setting.