Perception of recently graduated Dutch dentists of their education.

INTRODUCTION: The curriculum of the three dental schools in the Netherlands consists of a three-year bachelor's and three-year master's course. The education programmes focus inter alia on clinical dental reasoning, thinking and acting scientifically, general oral healthcare activities, and communication and (inter)professional cooperation. This study examined how recently graduated dentists, in the light of their work experience, evaluate their education in retrospect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 1074 dentists who graduated between 2012 and mid-2017 were invited by e-mail to answer a web survey. Of those, 314 (29%) took part in the study. RESULTS: The majority of dentists were positive about their knowledge of general and clinical oral healthcare fields when they graduated (70% and 68%, respectively). Fewer dentists were satisfied with their skills in terms of some specific procedures (50%) and clinical professional areas (33%). By far, the majority (85%) were satisfied with the educational skills of their teachers. The majority (70%) felt that their education fitted in well with their professional practice. Nevertheless, 60% thought a year's trainee work experience would be a good idea. The overall evaluation of dentists who have their own practices was less positive than those who do not. CONCLUSION: Knowledge and skills relating to managing a practice were not sufficiently addressed in the programme. The introduction of a practical internship would be desirable, preferably during the education. But when they look back, the majority of recently graduated dentists in the Netherlands are generally positive about the education they received.

Collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienists: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Influenced by governmental measures, collaboration in oral health care practices in the Netherlands has increased in recent decades. Previous studies on this subject have mainly concerned the composition of the staff or have been normative rather than descriptive. Based on the existing literature, four aspects were expected to be of significant influence on the collaboration on oral health care practices: goals, leadership, the allocation of tasks and responsibilities and formalization. METHODS: The aim of this study was to describe a classification of collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienists within oral health care practices in the Netherlands. Eighteen semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted in nine oral health care practices, which differed with regard to both practice characteristics and characteristics of the principal general dental practitioner. In all practices, the principal general dental practitioner and one dental hygienist were consulted. The interviews were conducted in the practices of the respondents and were held between October 2019 and July 2020. The interviews were analyzed through theoretical thematic analysis using Microsoft Word 2010 and Atlas.ti 8. Three researchers coded and analyzed three practices, and discussed their results. Based on their mutual conclusions, one researcher analysed all practices. The final results were reviewed and approved by the other two researchers. RESULTS: Different factors influencing the collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienist in the Netherlands were found. The most important factors seemed to be leadership style and goals for collaboration. Leadership style varied from very directive to very supportive and seemed to be connected to the allocation of responsibilities. Goals for collaboration varied from predominantly patient-related to mostly practice-related. Formalization appeared to be more present in larger practices and practices that are affiliated to a dental chain. CONCLUSIONS: Based on leadership style and goals for collaboration, a classification was identified. This classification is recommended as a starting point for further research on directive and supportive leadership in oral health care practices.

Developments in oral health care in the Netherlands between 1995 and 2018.

BACKGROUND: Over the past several decades, changes in legislation and regulations have been implemented in oral health care in the Netherlands. In 1995, for example, a major transformation in the funding of oral health care was implemented, after which most oral health care for adults was no longer covered by national insurance. In 1997, the Individual Healthcare Professions Act, in which the authorizations of care providers were described, was established. The Healthcare Quality, Complaints and Disputes Act, established in 2016, concerns the accountability of professional behavior. Regulations concerning employment have changed several times since 1995. These changes have affected the work and practice situation of oral health care providers. METHODS: Data from many publicly available sources were gathered and combined with internal reports mainly derived from the Data Stations project of the Royal Dutch Dental Association. This project was established in 1995 and, since its initiation, 6716 dentists have participated an average of 6.7 times. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2018, nearly all professional groups in oral health care increased, particularly those of dental hygienists and prevention assistants. The number of dental practices decreased, but practices got larger in terms of dental units, number of patients, and personnel. The percentage of inhabitants visiting oral health care professionals remained unchanged, but the type of care provided moved towards more prevention. Oral health care providers exploited new opportunities to enhance and express their professional behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Oral health care in the Netherlands has evolved in recent years toward more collaboration in teams, and professions have established institutions to promote the quality and safety of care. Greater emphasis has been placed on prevention of dental diseases. These processes were influenced by new legislation and regulations, demographic changes within professional groups, and other social developments.

Minimally Invasive Intervention for Primary Caries Lesions: Are Dentists Implementing This Concept?

Contemporary minimally invasive treatment concepts for restorative treatment of primary caries lesions include both delayed intervention and smaller-sized preparations restricted to removal of carious tissue. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these concepts have resulted in a trend towards a more conservative choice made by dentists regarding treatment thresholds and restorative techniques. The results from previously conducted, precoded questionnaires developed by Espelid and Tveit, as well as from a recent Dutch questionnaire, were collected and analysed. A worldwide trend towards more minimally invasive strategies in the operative treatment of caries lesions could not be observed, neither for the initiation of operative treatment nor for the preparation techniques. However, in some countries, changes over time could be assessed, especially in Norway, where a reduction in the proportion of interventions is visible for both occlusal and approximal lesions, indicating that more dentists are postponing interventions until the lesions have progressed to a deeper level. From the Dutch national survey, it could be concluded that operators that intervene at an earlier stage of approximal lesioning (stage ≤4) also intervene at an earlier stage of occlusal caries (stage ≤3) (p = 0.012; OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.22-5.22). Generally, it can be concluded that dentists worldwide still tend to operatively intervene at a too early stage of caries, although variations exist between countries. A worldwide shift could be observed in the restorative material applied, since composite resin has almost completely replaced amalgam for restoring primary caries lesions.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

Recognizing and reporting domestic violence: attitudes, experiences and behavior of Dutch dentists.

BACKGROUND: On July 1(st) 2013 the Mandatory Reporting Code Act came into force in the Netherlands, making it compulsory for health professionals to adhere to a reporting code when they suspect patients to be victims of domestic violence (DV) or child abuse (CA). The Royal Dutch Dental Association (KNMT) developed a reporting code for dental professionals (RCD). Moreover, an e-learning module about DV has been developed. A web-survey was conducted to investigate how general dental practitioners (GDPs) deal with the RCD and what their experiences are with (signs of) DV and CA. METHODS: In April 2014 1038 GDPs were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-survey consisting of 24 items, through the KNMT Data Stations Project. The data was analyzed using SPSS (RELIABILITY, CHISQ and ANOVA). RESULTS: Of all GDPs invited to participate 264 (25 %) responded. 82 % of these GDPs are aware of their obligation to use the reporting code. 54 % of the GDPs are in favor of this obligation. 76 % of the GDPs have taken notice of the KNMT's RCD and 51 % of the GDPs have implemented the reporting code in one form or another in their practice. 24 % of the GDPs stated having suspected DV during the last twelve months in the case of 2.4 patients on average. 81 % took note of this in the patient's record and 58 % also took action in different ways. 54 % wants to complete the e-learning module. CONCLUSIONS: Most GDPs are aware of the new legislation and have taken cognizance of the RCD. Even though the majority of GDPs are not opposed to using a reporting code, over half of them have not yet implemented the code in practice. An important factor in this regard seems to be that a substantial minority of the GDPs says they are not sufficiently informed about aspects of reporting a case and about the steps they have to take.

Knowledge of Nairobi East District Community Health Workers concerning HIV-related orofacial lesions and other common oral lesions.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) related orofacial lesions (HROLs) impact negatively on the health of patients and could be managed at primary healthcare (PHC) level. Community health workers (CHWs) are crucial in optimal patient management through patient identification, education and early referral for professional care. The study objective was to assess knowledge of Nairobi East district CHWs regarding HROLs and other common oral diseases. METHODS: Of the total population of CHWs, 815 [94.5%] completed a 56-item questionnaire covering 5 topics: general dental knowledge, knowledge about HROLs, past encounters with HROLs, current care at community level, opinions regarding oral health problems; and items concerning background characteristics and past training activities. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed Cronbach's alpha coefficient values of 0.45, 0.59, 0.79, 0.50 and 0.09 respectively. The first four topics were confirmed as domains. Mean minimum score was 0 and mean maximum score was 1 for each variable. However, for 'past encounters with HROLs, the minimum score was 0 and maximum score was 5. RESULTS: CHWs had moderate knowledge about general oral health (mean = 0.47) and HROLs (mean = 0.43). None had been formally trained in oral health aspects. Although they had high opinions regarding their role in identifying, educating and referring patients with HROLs (mean = 0.80) to the health facilities, they actually rarely referred such patients. CONCLUSIONS: CHWs need training for building competence in promoting oral health among general and HIV patients in their communities and in early identification and management of non-HIV oral lesions.

Barriers to adopting and implementing an oral health programme for managing early childhood caries through primary health care providers in Lima, Peru.

BACKGROUND: To identify barriers to participation in a primary oral health care programme aimed at preventing early childhood caries, as perceived by nurses. METHODS: Of a total of 140 randomly selected nurses employed in 40 government health centres in Lima, 123 completed a pre-tested questionnaire. Background variables were districts' 'socio-economic status' (SES) and 'years of experience'. Factor analysis was performed. ANOVA was applied for testing the influence of the background variables on the barrier factors. Chi-square test was applied to test for differences between single item barriers and the background variables. The Likert-scale (1-4) was used. RESULTS: There was no statistical significant effect of 'SES' or of 'years of experience' of nurses on any of the 7 barrier factors, nor on the 11 single item barrier factors. The highest mean score (3.81) was obtained for the barrier factor 'importance of oral health', followed by 'perceived responsibility' (3.44). The lowest mean score was (1.70) for 'knowledge on caries prevention'. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses consider oral health very important and are willing to participate actively in programmes aimed at reducing Early Childhood Caries, provided that they will be trained well and that the director and dentists of the health centre give their consent.

Exploring collaboration reasons and leadership styles in Dutch primary oral healthcare practices.

AIMS: To outline the extent to which practice owners in Dutch oral healthcare practices (OHPs) use a directive and supportive leadership styles, to map out which goals practice owners in Dutch OHPs consider most important when choosing collaboration within the practice and to identify the reasons why oral healthcare professionals choose to engage in collaborative practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey involving 802 general dental practitioners, dental hygienists, and prevention assistants was conducted. The questionnaire covered, among other subjects, leadership styles and reasons for collaboration. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA, linear regression, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared to employees, practice owners ascribe to themselves more characteristics of both directive and supportive leadership. The most frequently mentioned reasons for choosing a practice form that involves collaboration were the possibilities to provide the best care and the desire to focus on prevention. Healthcare providers chose to work in a collaborative practice for several reasons, which were associated with profession, age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of directive and supportive leadership among practice owners in dental care practices in the Netherlands showed a strong correlation. The most frequently mentioned reasons for choosing collaboration were related to healthcare content.

Introduction of the ART approach in Egypt: intentions, clinical effects and perceived barriers. A cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of the introduction of ART in Upper-Egypt and assess the participating General Dental Practitioners' (GDPs) opinions, intentions, expectations and experiences regarding barriers related to using ART. METHODS: Thirty-five GDPs were selected and trained on ART for 5 days. Knowledge assessments were done immediately before and after the training, using a questionnaire. Regular evaluation and assessment data were collected after 6 and 12 months, through questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Clinical data in government and private clinics were collected, using clinical record-forms. GDPs' opinions, intentions, expectations and experiences regarding barriers related to ART were assessed, through questionnaires, at the start and after 1 year. The control group comprised 35 other GPDs. RESULTS: At the start, the most GDPs were intended to make ART restorations. After 1 year 65% and 97% actually made ART restorations in their government and private clinics, respectively. The barriers faced by the GDPs to making ART restorations in the government clinics were mainly unavailability of suitable restoration material and of hand instruments. After 1 year post-training, ART restorations constituted 41% of the total plastic restorations made. Finally, the majority of GDPs believe that ART is suitable for use in their government and private practices. CONCLUSION: All participating GDPs intended to introduce ART in their government and private clinics. They successfully introduced this technique in their private clinics but, owing to the unavailability of suitable instruments and restoration materials, failed to do so in the government clinics. They liked the simplicity of the technique.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth is defined as the (surgical) removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as inflammation of the gums around the tooth, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease, damage to the adjacent teeth and the development of cysts and tumours. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal have been to prevent late incisor crowding. When surgical removal is carried out in older patients, following the development of symptoms, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort increases. Nevertheless, in most developed countries prophylactic removal of trouble-free wisdom teeth, either impacted or fully erupted, has long been considered as 'appropriate care' and is a very common procedure. There is a need to determine whether there is evidence to support this practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults compared with the retention (conservative management) of these wisdom teeth. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 30 March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 30 March 2012), and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 30 March 2012). There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adolescents and adults comparing the effect of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth with no-treatment (retention). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six review authors screened the results of the search and assessed whether trials met the inclusion criteria for the review. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted in duplicate and independently by six review authors. Where information was unclear, authors of studies were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs were identified that compared the removal of asymptomatic wisdom teeth with retention and reported quality of life. One RCT on adolescents was identified that compared the removal of impacted mandibular wisdom teeth with retention and only examined the effect on late lower incisor crowding. This study at high risk of bias provided no evidence that extraction of wisdom teeth had an effect on lower incisor crowding over 5 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence was found to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults. A single trial comparing removal versus retention found no evidence of a difference on late lower incisor crowding at 5 years, however no other relevant outcomes were measured.Watchful monitoring of asymptomatic third molar teeth may be a more prudent strategy.

The Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) index: face and content validation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish the face and content validity of the Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) index. This hierarchical epidemiological index consists of 10 codes covering the spectrum of carious lesion progression and describing conditions ranging from the absence of carious lesions to the presence of sealants and restorations, the presence of lesions in enamel and dentine, and the presence of advanced stages of carious lesion in pulpal tissue and tissue surrounding the tooth. METHODS: Using the RAND modified e-Delphi consensus method, a set of 17 statements related to the content, including the codes and descriptions used, and suitability of the CAST index were scored on a scale of 1-9 by 15 senior epidemiologists from 15 countries over three rounds of assessment. Agreement of ≥ 75% was required to indicate consensus on a statement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 14 statements in the first round, none in the second and on the remaining three statements in the third round. To obtain feedback on the initial validation of the index and to test its external validity, 41 epidemiologists from 24 countries were requested to assess the validated statements. Minor changes to 10 of the 17 statements' content and descriptions were suggested; this necessitated the resubmission of the modified CAST index to the original 15 epidemiologists. Consensus of ≥ 80% was reached on all 10 statements regarding codes and their descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: After a total of four rounds with the panel members and one round with the feedback group, the CAST index was approved for face and content validity. External validity was obtained. The participating epidemiologists found the RAND modified e-Delphi consensus method to be a suitable instrument for reaching consensus.

Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria.

A new set of criteria for assessing the quality of restorations using modern restorative materials, named FDI criteria, was recently introduced. This study tested the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in survival estimate percentages of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART criteria after 1 and 5 years. One operator placed a total of 60 class I and 30 Class II high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in ninety 14- to 15-year-olds. Two calibrated and independent evaluators using both criteria evaluated restorations on diestone replicas at baseline and after 1 and 5 years. Statistical analyses were done using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The survival results of ART restorations assessed using both sets of criteria after 1 and 5 years (p = 0.27) did not differ significantly. Three ART restorations were assessed as failures according to the ART criteria, while they were assessed as survived using the FDI criteria. We conclude that the modified ART criteria enable reliable assessment of ART restorations in permanent teeth from diestone replicas and that there was no significant difference in survival estimates of ART restorations assessed using both sets of criteria. The null hypothesis was accepted.

Survival of occlusal ART restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer with and without chlorhexidine: A 2-year split-mouth quadruple-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.

The study question was whether the use of high-viscosity glass-ionomer with chlorhexidine (HVGIC/CHX) for the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) prepared cavities could achieve a higher restoration survival percentage and be more effective for preventing dentine carious lesions adjacent to the restoration than the use of HVGIC without CHX. The study followed a split-mouth, quadruple-blind, randomized controlled clinical design and lasted 2 years. Patients with at least two small- to medium-sized occlusal cavities were included. The occlusal cavities were prepared according to the ART method and restored with HVGIC/CHX (test) and HVGIC (control). A replica of all restorations available and digital photographs were fabricated at baseline and after 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 years and evaluated by two examiners using the ART and Federation Dentaire International (FDI) restoration assessment criteria. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to test for significance between the survival percentages. A total of 100 subjects with an average age of 14.4 years participated. According to the ART restoration assessment criteria, the 2-year survival percentages of ART/HVGIC/CHX (96.8%) and ART/HVGIC (94.8%) did not differ significantly and no significant difference was found between the test (97.9%) and control (96.9%) groups according to the FDI restoration assessment criteria. Eight and five occlusal restorations failed according to the ART and FDI restoration criteria, respectively. No dentine carious lesions along the restoration margin were observed. The 2-year survival of ART restorations in both groups was high. The development of carious dentine lesions adjacent to the restoration was not observed in either treatment group. There is no evidence for modifying HVGIC by incorporating chlorhexidine in order to prevent dentine carious lesion development or to improve the survival of ART restorations in occlusal surfaces in permanent teeth. HVGIC without chlorhexidine can be used successfully to restore occlusal 'ART-prepared' cavities in permanent teeth.

Routine oral examinations in primary care: which predictors determine what is done? A prospective clinical case recording study.

OBJECTIVES: Elements of a routine oral examination (ROE) in dental practice may be determined by patients' oral status, as recommended by prevailing knowledge, as well as by other factors. Our aim was to identify patient and GDP characteristics associated with aspects of oral health assessment (OHA) and clinical management (CM) in patients with various oral conditions. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording of 1059 ROEs by 128 GDPs. A clinical case recording form was used to record oral health assessment, diagnoses made, and clinical management for each ROE. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (with random coefficients) were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 'patients' age' in domains OHA as well as CM was the most salient predictor, while 'positive attitude to periodontal screening' showed to be a prominent GDP-factor. Patient characteristics mostly involved in OHA and CM were 'disease-free period' (odds ratios from 0.21 to 0.66), 'oral health compliance' (odds ratios from 0.32 to 0.65) and 'risk for periodontal disease' (odds ratios from 1.79 to 4.97). 'Continuing professional development' (odds ratios from 2.54 to 4.95), 'mean reading hours' (odds ratios from 2.25 to 4.48) and 'cooperation with peers' (odds ratios from 2.78 to 3.72) showed to be significant GDP-predictors. CONCLUSIONS: ROEs are determined by patient oral health status, particularly by aspects of oral health compliance and risk for oral disease, but also by GDP characteristics. The latter may reflect perceptions of a professional role, which need to be considered in efforts to improve the quality of ROE in oral care.

Effectiveness of a clinical guideline to improve dental health among orthodontically treated patients: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: White spot lesions (WSLs) occur as a side effect in over 25 % of patients who undergo orthodontic treatment, causing aesthetic problems and a risk of deeper enamel and dentine lesions. Dutch orthodontists show substantial variation in their application of WSL preventive measures, which include little incorporation of evidence from the literature. We recently developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) on this topic, which was further converted into a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate its incorporation into clinical practice. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this CPG-based CDSS, with regard to actually preventing WSL development during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances compared to usual preventive measures. Our study also aimed to evaluate the effects of implementing the CPG-based CDSS into routine clinical practice using a multifaceted strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study assessing both clinical effectiveness of the CPG and its implementation into routine practice. A total of 840 patients nested in 14 orthodontic practices will be randomly assigned as clusters to the intervention or the control arm. Patients recruited by the orthodontist in the intervention group will be treated following the CPG, while the usual preventative measures will be followed in the control arm. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with newly formed or enlarged WSLs after 6-9 months of treatment with fixed appliances, and at the end of treatment, using the CPG for WSL prevention compared with usual preventive measures. An additional aim is to obtain some preliminary outcomes regarding the implementation process. DISCUSSION: This study investigates the effectiveness of a newly developed guideline to improve oral health during orthodontic treatment, while simultaneously illuminating potential difficulties in adopting a guideline in general orthodontic practice. The innovative features of this study include the risk-based CDSS that discriminates between patients' oral health statuses with regard to preventive measure utilization in general orthodontic practices. Most studies focusing on WSL prevention apply the preventive intervention to each patient in an experimental setting, resulting in overtreatment and a disconnect from the real-world conditions in which the intervention is to be applied. Additionally, one of the overreaching goals of this initiative is to create a gold standard for WSL prevention during orthodontic treatment, against which future studies can compare new promising preventive measures and the readiness of clinicians to change and adopt new treatments. By doing so, we want to help bridge the gap between science and orthodontic clinical practice and improve the quality of oral health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Registry of the Dutch Cochrane Center under number NTR5012 , registration date 2 March 2015.

Routine oral examination: differences in characteristics of Dutch general dental practitioners related to type of recall interval.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore differences in behaviour (characteristics and opinions) among general dental practitioners (GDPs), using either a fixed (Fx) or an individualized recall interval (Iv) between successive routine oral examinations (ROEs). METHODS: In the year 2000, data were collected by means of a written questionnaire sent to a random stratified sample of 610 dentists of whom 521 responded, of which 508 (83%) were used for analysis. RESULTS: Two groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question: 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' Fifty-one per cent of the GDPs (n=257) applied Fxs for all patients, generally for a period of 6 months. Ivs were applied by 49% (n=251) of GDPs, depending on the determination of specific patient characteristics. Logistic regression analysis showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs for all patients. Furthermore, dentists applying Ivs required more time to conduct an ROE, partly because of a more extensive periodontal screening. GDPs applying Fxs, adhered more to the opinion that a fixed recall regime (every 6 months, as existed before 1995) should be re-introduced, whereas the GDPs in support of Ivs were more in favour to support the opinion that the ROE is 'an excellent instrument for effective, individualized oral care'. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GDPs differ in the way they deal with the determination of recall interval frequency. These are also specific differences in performance and opinions regarding ROE. With the changing prevalence of oral diseases and the skewed distribution within populations, further research is advocated on consistent decision making to determine the most appropriate recall policy in preventing oral disease.

Development of clinical practice guidelines for dentists: methods for topic selection.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare four methods for assessing the preferences of the dental profession for topics to be considered for the development of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: The methods were: (1) a survey among dentists, (2) an analysis of topics discussed in dental peer groups, and (3) screening of dental journals. A fourth method was obtained from method number 3. The frequencies of the reported topics were calculated for each of the methods. For the fourth method, the number of publications per topic were plotted against the year of publication, and the slope of the linear regression line was used as an indicator. Within each of the four methods, the topics were ranked according to the frequency in which they were reported, and to the slope value. The reliability of the methods was tested by the "item-rest sum correlation", which is the correlation of the rank positions of one method with the sum of the rank positions obtained by the remaining three methods. RESULTS: In using all methods, a total of 1027 topics were obtained. Reclassification resulted in 34 topics. Moderate item-rest sum correlations ranging from 0.34 to 0.48 were found for all methods, indicating that the rank order of every method moderately predicts the sum of the rank orders obtained by all other methods. The topic 'prevention of cross-infection' had the highest overall rank position. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the four applied methods appeared to provide a consistent ranking of potential topics. In view of the fact that the questionnaire method is generally applicable, this method should be preferred for assessing dentists' preferences for topics to be considered for the development of clinical practice guidelines.

Development of clinical practice guidelines: evaluation of 2 methods.

The aim of this study was to compare 2 methods for developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the management of asymptomatic, impacted mandibular third molars. Outcome measures were the mean time invested by the participants for each method, the quality of the CPGs measured using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) indicator and observations of the group discussions. We used a national consensus procedure following the Rand modified Delphi procedure (2 panels) and a local consensus procedure (2 existing dental peer groups). The mean time spent was about equal for the 2 methods. The quality of the CPGs developed by the expert panels was higher than that of the CPGs developed by the dental peer groups. Observation indicated that all group processes were influenced by the chairperson. We concluded that the expert panel method is suitable for developing reliable CPGs on a national or regional level.

The Caries Assessment and Treatment (CAST) instrument.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the 'Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment' (CAST) instrument, its origin and content, and to provide an example of how results can be reported. METHODS: The CAST instrument covers the complete range of stages of carious lesion progression: from no carious lesion, through caries protection (sealant) and lesion care (restoration) to lesions in enamel and dentine, the advanced stages of carious lesion progression in pulpal and its consequences on tooth-surrounding tissue and tooth loss due to caries. Using the RAND modified e-Delphi consensus method two independent panels, comprising a total of 56 epidemiologists from 27 countries, determined the face and content validity of CAST. Panellists assessed 17 statements related to the content, description, suitability and international use of CAST. Agreement of 75% or higher was required for reaching consensus on a statement. Construct validity and reliability testing of CAST have been carried out, but results are not yet available. RESULTS: All 17 statements were approved by the panellists, who found the RAND modified e-Delphi consensus method suitable for achieving consensus. The CAST codes were ordered hierarchically. External validity was obtained. Reporting using CAST can be performed for orally healthy dentitions and those having morbidity and mortality. A DMF score can easily be calculated from the CAST codes, thereby enabling retention of the use of existing DMF scores. CONCLUSION: The CAST instrument for use in epidemiological surveys is very promising. Face and content validation is obtained. Construct validity and reliability testing will be completed soon. A structure for reporting results in a comprehensive, pragmatic and easily understood way is being developed.