Search

BACKGROUND: A questionable occlusal caries (QOC) lesion can be defined as an occlusal surface with no radiographic evidence of caries, but caries is suspected because of clinical appearance. In this study, the authors report the results of a 20-month follow-up of these lesions.METHODS: Fifty-three clinicians from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in this study, recording lesion characteristics at baseline and lesion status at 20 months.RESULTS: At baseline, 1,341 QOC lesions were examined; the treatment that was planned for 1,033 of those at baseline was monitoring (oral hygiene instruction, applying or prescribing fluoride or varnish, or both), and the remaining 308 received a sealant (n = 192) or invasive therapy (n = 116). At the 20-month visit, clinicians continued to monitor 927 (90 percent) of the 1,033 monitored lesions. Clinicians decided to seal 61 (6 percent) of the 1,033 lesions (mean follow-up, 19 months) and invasively treat 45 (4 percent) of them (mean follow-up, 15 months). Young patient age (< 18 years) (odds ratio = 3.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7-6.8) and the lesion's being on a molar (odds ratio = 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3-2.6) were associated with the clinician's deciding at some point after follow-up to seal the lesion or treat it invasively.CONCLUSIONS: Almost all (90 percent) QOC lesions for which the treatment planned at baseline was monitoring still were planned to undergo monitoring after 20 months. This finding suggests that noninvasive management is appropriate for these lesions.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Previous study results from baseline indicated a high prevalence of QOC lesions (34 percent). Clinicians should consider long-term monitoring when making treatment decisions about these lesions.

BACKGROUND: A questionable occlusal caries (QOC) lesion can be defined as an occlusal surface with no radiographic evidence of caries, but caries is suspected because of clinical appearance. In this study, the authors report the results of a 20-month follow-up of these lesions.METHODS: Fifty-three clinicians from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in this study, recording lesion characteristics at baseline and lesion status at 20 months.RESULTS: At baseline, 1,341 QOC lesions were examined; the treatment that was planned for 1,033 of those at baseline was monitoring (oral hygiene instruction, applying or prescribing fluoride or varnish, or both), and the remaining 308 received a sealant (n = 192) or invasive therapy (n = 116). At the 20-month visit, clinicians continued to monitor 927 (90 percent) of the 1,033 monitored lesions. Clinicians decided to seal 61 (6 percent) of the 1,033 lesions (mean follow-up, 19 months) and invasively treat 45 (4 percent) of them (mean follow-up, 15 months). Young patient age (< 18 years) (odds ratio = 3.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7-6.8) and the lesion's being on a molar (odds ratio = 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3-2.6) were associated with the clinician's deciding at some point after follow-up to seal the lesion or treat it invasively.CONCLUSIONS: Almost all (90 percent) QOC lesions for which the treatment planned at baseline was monitoring still were planned to undergo monitoring after 20 months. This finding suggests that noninvasive management is appropriate for these lesions.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Previous study results from baseline indicated a high prevalence of QOC lesions (34 percent). Clinicians should consider long-term monitoring when making treatment decisions about these lesions.

Questionable occlusal caries (QOC) can be defined as clinically suspected caries with no cavitation or radiographic evidence of occlusal caries. To the authors' knowledge, no one has quantified the prevalence of QOC, so this quantification was the authors' objective in conducting this study

Questionable occlusal caries (QOC) can be defined as clinically suspected caries with no cavitation or radiographic evidence of occlusal caries. To the authors' knowledge, no one has quantified the prevalence of QOC, so this quantification was the authors' objective in conducting this study

The authors conducted a study to identify factors associated with the materials that dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) use when placing the first restoration on permanent posterior tooth surfaces.

The authors conducted a study to identify factors associated with the materials that dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) use when placing the first restoration on permanent posterior tooth surfaces.

The authors conducted a study to identify factors associated with the materials that dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) use when placing the first restoration on permanent posterior tooth surfaces.

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-null, BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks offer important opportunities to move recent advances into routine clinical practice. If their findings are not only generalizable to dental practices at large, but can also elucidate how practice characteristics are related to treatment outcome, their importance is even further elevated. Our objective was to determine whether we met a key objective for The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN): to recruit a diverse range of practitioner-investigators interested in doing DPBRN studies. METHODS: DPBRN participants completed an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves. To date, more than 1100 practitioners from the five participating regions have completed the questionnaire. The regions consist of: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates, and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). We tested the hypothesis that there are statistically significant differences in key characteristics among DPBRN practices, based on responses from dentists who participated in DPBRN's first network-wide study (n = 546). RESULTS: There were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations. CONCLUSION: Although as a group, participants have much in common with practices at large; their substantial diversity offers important advantages, such as being able to evaluate how practice differences may affect treatment outcomes, while simultaneously offering generalizability to dentists at large. This should help foster knowledge transfer in both the research-to-practice and practice-to-research directions.

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-null, BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks offer important opportunities to move recent advances into routine clinical practice. If their findings are not only generalizable to dental practices at large, but can also elucidate how practice characteristics are related to treatment outcome, their importance is even further elevated. Our objective was to determine whether we met a key objective for The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN): to recruit a diverse range of practitioner-investigators interested in doing DPBRN studies. METHODS: DPBRN participants completed an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves. To date, more than 1100 practitioners from the five participating regions have completed the questionnaire. The regions consist of: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates, and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). We tested the hypothesis that there are statistically significant differences in key characteristics among DPBRN practices, based on responses from dentists who participated in DPBRN's first network-wide study (n = 546). RESULTS: There were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations. CONCLUSION: Although as a group, participants have much in common with practices at large; their substantial diversity offers important advantages, such as being able to evaluate how practice differences may affect treatment outcomes, while simultaneously offering generalizability to dentists at large. This should help foster knowledge transfer in both the research-to-practice and practice-to-research directions.