Constructing the brief diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (bDC/TMD) for field testing.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in temporomandibular disorders' (TMDs) diagnosis, the diagnostic process continues to be problematic in non-specialist settings. OBJECTIVE: To complete a Delphi process to shorten the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) to a brief DC/TMD (bDC/TMD) for expedient clinical diagnosis and initial management. METHODS: An international Delphi panel was created with 23 clinicians representing major specialities, general dentistry and related fields. The process comprised a full day workshop, seven virtual meetings, six rounds of electronic discussion and finally an open consultation at a virtual international symposium. RESULTS: Within the physical axis (Axis 1), the self-report Symptom Questionnaire of the DC/TMD did not require shortening from 14 items for the bDC/TMD. The compulsory use of the TMD pain screener was removed reducing the total number of Axis 1 items by 18%. The DC/TMD Axis 1 10-section examination protocol (25 movements, up to 12 sets of bilateral palpations) was reduced to four sections in the bDC/TMD protocol involving three movements and three sets of palpations. Axis I then resulted in two groups of diagnoses: painful TMD (inclusive of secondary headache), and common joint-related TMD with functional implications. The psychosocial axis (Axis 2) was shortened to an ultra-brief 11 item assessment. CONCLUSION: The bDC/TMD represents a substantially reduced and likely expedited method to establish (grouping) diagnoses in TMDs. This may provide greater utility for settings requiring less granular diagnoses for the implementation of initial treatment, for example non-specialist general dental practice.

Outcomes of treatment and monitoring of posterior teeth with cracks: three-year results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: To describe treatment and monitoring outcomes of posterior teeth with cracks at baseline followed in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network for up to three years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and nine dentists enrolled a convenience sample of 2,858 patients, each with a posterior tooth with at least one visible crack and followed them for three years. Characteristics at the patient, tooth, and crack level were recorded at baseline and at annual recall visits. Data on all teeth referred for extraction were reviewed. Data on all other teeth, treated or monitored, seen at one or more recall visits were reviewed for evidence of failure (subsequent extraction, endodontics, or recommendation for a re-treatment). RESULTS: The survival rate for teeth with cracks at baseline exceeded 98% (only 37 extractions), and the failure rate for teeth that were treated restoratively was only 14%. Also, only about 14% of teeth recommended at baseline for monitoring were later recommended to be treated, and about 6.5% of teeth recommended for monitoring at baseline were later treated without a specific recommendation. Thus, about 80% of teeth recommended at baseline for monitoring continued with a monitoring recommendation throughout the entire three years of the study. Treatment failures were associated with intracoronal restorations (vs. full or partial coverage) and male patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this large 3-year practice-based study conducted across the USA, the survival rate of posterior teeth with a visible crack exceeded 85%. Clinical relevance Dentists can effectively evaluate patient-, tooth-, and crack-level characteristics to determine which teeth with cracks warrant treatment and which only warrant monitoring.

Recommended treatment of cracked teeth: Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Despite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Network dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained. RESULTS: A total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63%) were female, 2394 (85%) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77%) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86%) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46%) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98%), endodontics (n=29; 3%), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2%), extraction (n=2; 0.2%), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1%). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3% absolute difference (4% recommended treatment versus 1% recommended monitoring).

Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The definitive impression for a single-unit crown involves many material and technique factors that may affect the success of the crown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to determine whether impression technique (tray selection), impression material, or tissue displacement technique are associated with the clinical acceptability of the crown (CAC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network documented details of the preparation, impression, and delivery of 3730 consecutive single-unit crowns. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between impression techniques and materials and the CAC and to assess associations between the presence of a subgingival margin with the displacement technique and the outcome variables CAC and number of impressions required. RESULTS: Of the 3730 crowns, 3589 (96.2%) were deemed clinically acceptable. A significant difference in the CAC was found with different impression techniques (P<.001) and different impression materials (P<.001). The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 95.8% for dual-arch trays, 95.2% for quadrant trays, and 94.0% for complete-arch impression trays. Although no statistically significant difference was found in the CAC produced with dual-arch trays without both mesial and distal contacts, crowns fabricated under these conditions were less likely to achieve excellent occlusion. The percentage of the CAC for digital scans was 99.5%, 97.0% for polyether impressions, 95.5% for polyvinyl siloxane impressions, and 90.5% for other impression materials. Accounting for the location of the margin, the use of a dual-cord displacement technique was significantly associated with lower rates of requiring more than 1 impression (P=.015, odds ratio=1.43). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-arch trays produced clinically acceptable crowns; however, if the prepared tooth was unbounded, the occlusal fit was more likely to have been compromised. Digital scans produced a slightly higher rate of CAC than conventional impression materials. The use of a dual-cord technique was associated with a decreased need to remake impressions when the margins were subgingival.

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.

Remake Rates for Single-Unit Crowns in Clinical Practice: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: Some crowns returned from the laboratory are clinically unacceptable, and dentists must remake them. The objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify the remake rate of single-unit crowns; and (2) identify factors significantly associated with crown remakes and intraoral fit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recruited patients needing crowns and documented fabrication techniques, patient characteristics, and outcomes. Crowns were considered clinically acceptable or rejected. Also, various aspects of the clinical fit of the crown were graded and categorized as 'Goodness of Fit (GOF).' Dentist and patient characteristics were tested statistically for associations with crown acceptability and GOF. RESULTS: More than 200 dentists participated in this study (N = 205) and evaluated 3750 single-unit crowns. The mean age (years) of patients receiving a crown was 55. The remake rate for crowns was 3.8%. The range of rejection rates among individual practitioners was 0% to 42%. Most clinicians (118, or 58%) did not reject any crowns; all rejections came from 42% of the clinicians (n = 87). The most common reasons for rejections were proximal misfit, marginal errors, and esthetic failures. Fewer years in practice was significantly associated with lower crown success rates and lower fit scores. GOF was also associated with practice busyness and patient insurance status, patient gender (dentists reported better fit for female patients), and patient ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The crown remake rate in this study was about 4%. Remakes and crown GOF were associated with certain dentist and practice characteristics.

Sealing of restorations with marginal defects does not affect their longevity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate sealed amalgam and resin-based composite restorations after 12 years to determine whether sealing minor defects (micro-repairs) enhanced the longevity of restorations. METHODS: 34 subjects aged 18-80 were recruited. This sample group underwent 137 restorations, including 51 resin-based composite (RC) and 86 amalgam (AM) restorations. Existing restorations with localized, marginal defects were assigned to one of two groups: (a) the Sealing group (n=48, 27 AM; 21 RC) or (b) the Control group (n=89, 59 AM; 30 RC). The quality of each restoration was scored according to the modified USPHS criteria by two examiners at the beginning of the study and after 1-5, 10, and 12 years. Kaplan Meier survival curves were created and a Cox regression was applied to investigate survival variables. Mantel Cox, Wilcoxon, and Friedman tests were performed for comparisons within groups. RESULTS: After 12 years, no statistically significant differences were observed for the variables "restorative material" (P= 0.538) or "sealing yes/no" (P= 0.136) with respect to the longevity of the restorations. All groups behaved similarly with regard to marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and tooth sensitivity (P≥ 0.05). Cumulatively, after a 12-year observation period, sealing minor restoration defects did not affect the longevity of the restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sealing minor marginal defects for resin composites or amalgam restorations did not affect their longevity. This intervention may be considered over-treatment for patients with low-to-medium risks for developing dental caries.

Impression Techniques Used for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which impression and gingival displacement techniques practitioners use for single-unit crowns on natural teeth; and (2) test whether certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with the use of these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible for this survey study. The study used a questionnaire developed by clinicians, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and survey experts. The questionnaire was pretested via cognitive interviewing with a regionally diverse group of practitioners. The survey included questions regarding gingival displacement and impression techniques. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: The response rate was 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists (83%). Regarding gingival displacement, most clinicians reported using either a single cord (35%) or dual cord (35%) technique. About 16% of respondents preferred an injectable retraction technique. For making impressions, the most frequently used techniques and materials are: poly(vinyl siloxane), 77%; polyether, 12%; optical/digital, 9%. A dental auxiliary or assistant made the final impression 2% of the time. Regarding dual-arch impression trays, 23% of practitioners report they typically use a metal frame tray, 60% use a plastic frame, and 16% do not use a dual-arch tray. Clinicians using optical impression techniques were more likely to be private practice owners or associates. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents current techniques for gingival displacement and making impressions for crowns. Certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.

Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.001), region (p < 0.001), and years since graduation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.

Long-term Performance of Refurbished Amalgam Restorations: 10-year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: This prospective, blinded clinical trial assessed the performance of amalgam restorations that were refurbished, replaced, or not treated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients were included, ages 18-80 years, with 63 amalgam restorations that had one or more defects in their clinical features, such as defective anatomic form, roughness and/or luster according to United State Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Restorations were randomly assigned to either refurbishment (A: n = 21), replacement (B: n = 21) or untreated (C: n = 21) groups. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline (Kappa = 0.74) and after 10 years (Kappa = 0.84), according to eight parameters: anatomy, roughness, luster, secondary caries, marginal adaptation, occlusal contact, marginal staining and tooth sensitivity. Wilcoxon tests were performed for within-group comparisons, and Friedman tests were used for multiple within-group comparisons. The Mantel-Cox test was used to compare survival curves. RESULTS: After 10 years, 49 restorations (77.8%) were assessed (group A: n = 19; group B: n = 13; group C: n = 17). Over a decade, the three groups showed similar clinical performances for all studied parameters: anatomy (p = 0.410), roughness (p = 0.930), luster (p = 0.984), secondary caries (p = 1.0), marginal adaptation (p = 0.433), occlusal contact (p = 0.33), marginal staining (p = 0.470), and tooth sensitivity (p = 0.784). CONCLUSIONS: Amalgam restorations that have defective anatomic form, roughness and/or luster performed similarly for all studied parameters, whether they were refurbished, replaced or left untreated after 10 years in patients with low and intermediate caries risk. Most of the restorations were classified as clinically acceptable after ten years. Restorations in all three groups tended to deteriorate over time.

Satisfaction with dental care among patients who receive invasive or non-invasive treatment for non-cavitated early dental caries: findings from one region of the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: The objectives were to: (1) quantify patient satisfaction with treatment for early dental caries overall, and according to whether or not (2a) the patient received invasive treatment; (2b) was high-risk for dental caries, and had dental insurance; and (3) encourage practitioners to begin using non-invasive approaches to early caries management. METHODS: Ten practitioners recorded patient, lesion, and treatment information about non-cavitated early caries lesions. Information on 276 consecutive patients with complete data was included, who received either non-invasive (no dental restoration) or invasive (dental restoration) treatment. Patients completed a patient satisfaction questionnaire and were classified as dissatisfied if they did not "agree" or "strongly agree" with any of 14 satisfaction items. RESULTS: Patients had a mean (± SD) age of 41.8 (±15.8) years, 64% were female and 88% were white. Twenty-five percent (n = 68) were dissatisfied in at least one of the 14 satisfaction items. Satisfaction levels did not significantly vary by patient's gender, race, caries risk category, or affected tooth surface location. Overall, 11% (28 of 276) received invasive treatment; satisfaction did not differ between patients who had invasive or non-invasive treatment. Seven patients received invasive treatment at their request even though that was not what their practitioner recommended; 5 out of 6 were satisfied with their treatment nonetheless. CONCLUSIONS: About one-fourth of patients treated for non-cavitated early caries were dissatisfied with at least some aspect of their dental care experience. Satisfaction of patients who received invasive treatment did not differ from those who received non-invasive treatment.

Management of Dentin Hypersensitivity by National Dental Practice-Based Research Network practitioners: results from a questionnaire administered prior to initiation of a clinical study on this topic.

BACKGROUND: Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common problem encountered in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the management approaches for DH among United States dentists. METHODS: One hundred eighty five National Dental Practice-Based Research Network clinicians completed a questionnaire regarding their preferred methods to diagnose and manage DH in the practice setting, and their beliefs about DH predisposing factors. RESULTS: Almost all dentists (99%) reported using more than one method to diagnose DH. Most frequently, they reported using spontaneous patient reports coupled with excluding other causes of oral pain by direct clinical examination (48%); followed by applying an air blast (26%), applying cold water (12%), and obtaining patient reports after dentist's query (6%). In managing DH, the most frequent first choice was desensitizing, over-the-counter (OTC), potassium nitrate toothpaste (48%), followed by fluorides (38%), and glutaraldehyde/HEMA (3%). A total of 86% of respondents reported using a combination of products when treating DH, most frequently using fluoride varnish and desensitizing OTC potassium nitrate toothpaste (70%). The most frequent predisposing factor leading to DH, as reported by the practitioners, was recessed gingiva (66%), followed by abrasion, erosion, abfraction/attrition lesions (59%) and bruxism (32%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of network practitioners use multiple methods to diagnose and manage DH. Desensitizing OTC potassium nitrate toothpaste and fluoride formulations are the most widely used products to manage DH in dental practice setting.

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.

Does refurbishing composites lead to short-term effects or long-lasting improvement?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of refurbished resin composite restorations compared to untreated (negative control) restorations over a period of 10 years. METHODS: 26 subjects (having a total of 52 composite restorations) were recruited. All restorations in the refurbished group showed clinical features rated bravo according to modified USPHS criteria. Untreated restorations were those that had been deemed acceptable (alpha or bravo rated); these were used as controls. Two examiners performed assessments at baseline and during the 5th and 10th years after the intervention. Wilcoxon tests were performed for within-group comparisons, Friedman tests were used for multiple within-group comparisons, and Mann Whitney tests were used for between-groups comparisons. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated, and the Mantel-Cox test was used to compare curves. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In both groups, 10-year scores were significantly different from baseline scores in all clinical parameters except secondary caries. There were no statistically significant differences in the survival analysis of groups (log-rank test, P = 0.376). Refurbishing treatment improved the anatomy, roughness, luster, and marginal adaptation of restorations with a short-term effect, with most properties rated acceptable after 10 years of clinical service. The clinical characteristics were similar for all groups at the 10th year.

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.

Dentists' use of caries risk assessment and individualized caries prevention for their adult patients: Findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies have examined dentists' subjective ratings of importance of caries risk factors or tested whether dentists use this information in treatment planning. This study tested several hypotheses related to caries risk assessment (CRA) and individualized caries prevention (ICP). METHODS: Data were collected as part of a questionnaire entitled 'Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment' completed by 547 practitioners who belong to The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN), a consortium of participating practices and dental organizations. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of DPBRN dentists perform CRA on their patients. Recently graduated dentists, dentists with busier practices, and those who believe a dentist can predict future caries were the most likely to use CRA. The association between CRA and individualized prevention was weaker than expected (r = 0.21). Dentists who perform CRA provide ICP to 57% of their patients, compared with 42% for dentists who do not perform CRA. Based on their responses to radiographic and clinical scenarios in the questionnaire, dentists who use CRA appear to use this information in restorative decisions. CONCLUSION: A substantial percentage of DPBRN dentists do not perform CRA, and there is not a strong linkage between its use and use of individualized preventive regimens for adult patients. More progress in the implementation of current scientific evidence in this area is warranted.

The Decision to Repair or Replace a Defective Restoration is Affected by Who Placed the Original Restoration: Findings from the National Dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how restoration characteristics are associated with the decision to repair or replace an existing restoration. The following hypotheses were studied: dentists who placed the original restoration are more likely to repair instead of replace restorations (H1) that are in molar teeth; (H2) that are in the upper arch; (H3) that have amalgam restorative material; (H4) if a fracture is not the primary reason for the defect; and (H5) when the restoration comprises more than one surface. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a consecutive patient/restoration recruitment design. 194 dentists members of a dental practice-based research network recorded data on restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement. RESULTS: For 6,623 of the 8,770 defective restorations in 6,643 patients, the treatment was provided by the dentist who had not placed the original restoration (75%). The 2-way interaction revealed that dentists who had placed the original restoration often chose to repair when the defective restoration was in a molar, relative to premolar or anterior teeth (OR = 2.2, p <.001); and chose to replace when the restoration had amalgam (OR = 0.5, p < .001), and when it was a fracture compared to another reason (OR = 0.8, p = 001). CONCLUSION: Most dentists are not conservative when they revisit a restoration that they originally placed regardless of type of failure, number of surfaces or material used. However, dentists who had placed the original restoration were significantly more likely to repair it when the defective restoration was in a molar tooth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Most dentists who placed the original restoration were prone to replace it, however if the defective restoration was located in a molar tooth they would consider repairing it.

Methods dentists use to diagnose primary caries lesions prior to restorative treatment: Findings from The Dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) quantify the diagnostic techniques used by Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) dentists before they decide to treat primary caries lesions surgically and (2) examine whether certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics are associated with their use. METHODS: A total of 228 DPBRN dentists recorded information on 5,676 consecutive restorations inserted due to primary caries lesions on 3,751 patients. Practitioner-investigators placed a mean of 24.9 (SD = 12.4) restorations. Lesions were categorized as posterior proximal, anterior proximal, posterior occiusal, posterior smooth, or anterior smooth. Techniques used to diagnose the lesion were categorized as clinical assessment, radiographs, and/or optical. Statistical analysis utilized generalized mixed-model ANOVA to account for the hierarchical structure of the data. RESULTS: By lesion category, the diagnostic technique combinations used most frequently were clinical assessment plus radiographs for posterior proximal (47%), clinical assessment for anterior proximal (51%), clinical assessment for posterior occlusal (46%), clinical assessment for posterior smooth (77%), and clinical assessment for anterior smooth (80%). Diagnostic technique was significantly associated with lesion category after adjusting for clustering in dentists (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results--obtained during actual clinical procedures rather than from questionnaire-based hypothetical scenarios--quantified the diagnostic techniques most commonly used during the actual delivery of routine restorative care. Diagnostic technique varied by lesion category and with certain practice and patient characteristics.

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.