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.

Diagnostic approach used by US general dental practitioners following discovery of oral lesions suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Oral cancer examinations seek to clinically identify early oral cancers and discover premalignancies prior to their progression to invasive cancer. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and August 2017 to explore and quantify the diagnostic approach used by United States (US) general dental practitioners following discovery of an oral lesion suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy. US licensed general dental practitioners who were clinically active members of the US National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible to participate. Data for analysis were obtained via two questionnaires. RESULTS: The majority of participants were males, practiced full-time, had a suburban primary practice, were born during the 1950s, and graduated dental school in the 1980s or 2000s. After identifying an oral lesion suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy, the next action of most general dental practitioner respondents (65.4%) was to refer the patient for consultation/biopsy. Most general dental practitioners (87.2%) referred to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon; 22% of general dental practitioners reported personally biopsying suspicious lesions. There was a relatively weak association between completing an Advanced Education in General Dentistry or General Practice Residency and subsequently personally performing biopsies on patients with oral lesions suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy (OR 1.33, P = .06). Most written referrals took place electronically and often included information, including lesion location (87.0%), lesion sign/symptoms (85.3%), lesion history (83.9%), radiographs (59.3%), medical history (50.6%), dental history (48.8%), and photographs (42.4%). When a referral biopsy was performed, referring clinicians were most frequently informed of the findings via a written report (96.7%, when positive for malignancy/premalignancy, and 95.4% when negative). CONCLUSION: A snapshot is presented of current actions taken by US general dental practitioners following the discovery of oral abnormalities suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy.

High-reliability organisation principles implemented in dentistry.

Introduction/objectives Successful dentistry inherently requires high-reliability and situational awareness to provide consistent high-quality care. However, treatment errors still occur in dentistry as they do in medicine. The importance of avoiding error is elevated for dentistry due to the increased frequency of irreversible procedures in each patient interaction compared to non-surgical specialties in medicine. Although a universal protocol for time-out exists, wrong-site procedures are a persistent healthcare issue in dentistry.Data By implementing high-reliability organisations (HROs) principles to dentistry, improved safety and quality can be achieved.Sources There are five essential principles that HROs have been observed to adhere to: preoccupation with failure; situational awareness/sensitivity to operations; a reluctance to simplify; deference to expertise; and commitment to resilience. Deep examination of the potential vulnerabilities in dentistry, using HRO ideology will create effective process improvement strategies. It fosters a culture of accountability using systematic problem-solving as opposed to condemnation.Study selection Implementation of HRO principles will improve the existing universal time-out process, while placing quality and performance at the central focus of strategic success.Conclusions Dentists can adopt these HRO principles into their practices to create effective process improvement strategies.

Community-based sugar-sweetened beverage intervention associated with short-term improvements in self-rated oral health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of a community-based childhood obesity prevention intervention targeting Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption on self-rated oral health among children and their parents/caregivers. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of data from a pilot site-randomized intervention (H2 GO!) targeting SSB consumption and obesity risk among children. The 6-week SSB behavioural intervention was implemented in two Massachusetts Boys and Girls Club sites that were matched for size and racial/ethnic composition. Children ages 9-12 years and their parents/caregivers were eligible to participate. Data on self-rated oral health and sociodemographics were obtained via self-report surveys at baseline, 2 and 6 months. Generalized linear mixed regression models were used to estimate 2- and 6-month change in oral health associated with the intervention. RESULTS: Data are from 100 child participants (46% female; 38% Black, 20% Hispanic, 13% White, 12% Multiracial, 11% Asian) and 87 parent participants (78.2% female; 37.9% Hispanic, 29.9% Black, 14.9% Asian, 10.3% White). At baseline, 47% of child participants rated their oral health as good, followed by very good (32%), fair (11%) and excellent (10%). Among parents, 46.3% rated their oral health as good, followed by very good (29.3%), excellent (9.8%), fair (9.7%) and poor (4.9%). The intervention was associated with 2- and 6-month improvements in child participants' mean self-rated oral health scores (ß = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.087; P < .001; ß = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.34; P < .001, respectively) and with 2-month improvements in parent participants' mean self-rated oral health (ß = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.016, 0.82; P = .042). CONCLUSION: Short-term improvements in oral health among children and their parents/caregivers were observed among those participating in a SSB behavioural intervention. Community-based behavioural programmes targeting SSB consumption may be a promising approach to promote oral health as well as prevent childhood obesity.

Data on characterizing the gene expression patterns of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis genes: CLN1, CLN2, CLN3, CLN5 and their association to interneuron and neurotransmission markers: Parvalbumin and Somatostatin.

The article contains raw and analyzed data related to the research article "Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis genes, CLN2, CLN3, CLN5 are spatially and temporally co-expressed in a developing mouse brain" (Fabritius et al., 2014) [1]. The processed data gives an understanding of the development of the cell types that are mostly affected by defective function of CLN proteins, timing of expression of CLN1, CLN2, CLN3 and CLN5 genes in a murine model. The data shows relationship between the expression pattern of these genes during neural development. Immunohistochemistry was used to identify known interneuronal markers for neurotransmission and cell proliferation: parvalbumin, somatostatin subpopulations of interneurons. Non-radioactive in-situ hybridization detected CLN5 mRNA in the hippocampus. Throughout the development strong expression of CLN genes were identified in the germinal epithelium and in ventricle regions, cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum. This provides supportive evidence that CLN1, CLN2, CLN3 and CLN5 genes may be involved in synaptic pruning.

Treatment recommendations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to quantify practitioner variation in likelihood to recommend a crown and test whether certain dentist, practice, and clinical factors are associated significantly with this likelihood. METHODS: Dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed a questionnaire about indications for single-unit crowns. In 4 clinical scenarios, practitioners ranked their likelihood of recommending a single-unit crown. The authors used these responses to calculate a dentist-specific crown factor (range, 0-12). A higher score implied a higher likelihood of recommending a crown. The authors tested certain characteristics for statistically significant associations with the crown factor. RESULTS: A total of 1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists (83%) responded. Practitioners were most likely to recommend crowns for teeth that were fractured, cracked, or endodontically treated or had a broken restoration. Practitioners overwhelmingly recommended crowns for posterior teeth treated endodontically (94%). Practice owners, practitioners in the Southwest, and practitioners with a balanced workload were more likely to recommend crowns, as were practitioners who used optical scanners for digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the likelihood of recommending a crown. Although consensus exists in some areas (posterior endodontic treatment), variation dominates in others (size of an existing restoration). Recommendations varied according to type of practice, network region, practice busyness, patient insurance status, and use of optical scanners. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations for crowns may be influenced by factors unrelated to tooth and patient variables. A concern for tooth fracture-whether from endodontic treatment, fractured teeth, or large restorations-prompted many clinicians to recommend crowns.