Skip header and navigation

Refine By

   MORE

7 records – page 1 of 1.

A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature113423
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Jun;144(6):583-93
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2013
Author
Michael S McCracken
Valeria V Gordan
Mark S Litaker
Ellen Funkhouser
Jeffrey L Fellows
Douglass G Shamp
Vibeke Qvist
Jeffrey S Meral
Gregg H Gilbert
Author Affiliation
Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Jun;144(6):583-93
Date
Jun-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Child
Child, Preschool
Cohort Studies
Community-Based Participatory Research
Composite Resins - standards
Dental Amalgam - standards
Dental Materials - standards
Dental Prosthesis Repair - statistics & numerical data
Dental Restoration Failure - statistics & numerical data
Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification - standards
Dentists - statistics & numerical data
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Forecasting
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Risk factors
Scandinavia
Sex Factors
Surface Properties
United States
Workload
Young Adult
Abstract
Knowing which factors influence restoration longevity can help clinicians make sound treatment decisions. The authors analyzed data from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network to identify predictors of early failures of amalgam and resin-based composite (RBC) restorations.
In this prospective cohort study, the authors gathered information from clinicians and offices participating in the network. Clinicians completed a baseline data collection form at the time of restoration placement and annually thereafter. Data collected included patient factors, practice factors and dentist factors, and the authors analyzed them by using mixed-model logistic regression.
A total of 226 practitioners followed up 6,218 direct restorations in 3,855 patients; 386 restorations failed (6.2 percent) during the mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 23.7 (8.8) months. The number of tooth surfaces restored at baseline helped predict subsequent restoration failure; restorations with four or more restored surfaces were more than four times more likely to fail. Restorative material was not associated significantly with longevity; neither was tooth type. Older patient age was associated highly with failure (P
Notes
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Jun;136(6):790-616022046
Cites: Clin Oral Investig. 2003 Jun;7(2):63-7012768463
Cites: JAMA. 2006 Apr 19;295(15):1775-8316622139
Cites: J Dent. 2006 Aug;34(7):427-3516314023
Cites: Dent Mater J. 2006 Sep;25(3):611-517076335
Cites: J Dent. 2007 Feb;35(2):124-916956709
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):763-7217545265
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):775-8317545266
Cites: Public Health Rep. 2007 Sep-Oct;122(5):657-6317877313
Cites: J Adhes Dent. 2007 Oct;9(5):469-7518297828
Cites: Br Dent J. 2003 Jun 14;194(11):613-8; discussion 60912819697
Cites: J Dent. 2012 Oct;40(10):829-3522771415
Cites: J Dent. 2003 Aug;31(6):395-40512878022
Cites: J Med Syst. 2003 Oct;27(5):445-5614584621
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 May;135(5):637-4515202758
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 1988 May;116(6):651-43164030
Cites: J Dent. 1996 Jul;24(4):257-628783530
Cites: Oper Dent. 1994 Jul-Aug;19(4):127-329028231
Cites: Br Dent J. 1997 May 24;182(10):373-819185355
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 Dec;129(12):1757-99854929
Cites: Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Mar;116(3):394-918335109
Cites: J Dent. 2008 May;36(5):343-5018313826
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Apr;141(4):441-820354094
Cites: J Dent. 2005 Nov;33(10):827-3516246480
Cites: J Dent. 2012 May;40(5):397-40522342563
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 1999 Oct;57(5):257-6210614902
Cites: J Dent. 2000 Feb;28(2):111-610666968
Cites: J Adhes Dent. 2001 Spring;3(1):45-6411317384
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2001 Apr;59(2):57-6211370750
Cites: Community Dent Health. 2001 Dec;18(4):236-4111789702
Cites: Oper Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;27(5):488-9212216568
Cites: Community Dent Health. 2010 Mar;27(1):18-2220426256
Cites: J Dent Res. 2010 Oct;89(10):1063-720660797
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Apr;142(4):429-4021454850
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Jun;142(6):622-3221628683
Cites: Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):87-10122192253
Cites: Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012 May;88(5):797-80122395198
Comment In: J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Nov;144(11):1220, 122224177394
Comment In: J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Nov;144(11):122024177393
PubMed ID
23729455 View in PubMed
Less detail

Dentists' use of caries risk assessment in children: findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature143506
Source
Gen Dent. 2010 May-Jun;58(3):230-4
Publication Type
Article
Author
Joseph L Riley
Vebeke Qvist
Jeffrey L Fellows
D Brad Rindal
Joshua S Richman
Gregg H Gilbert
Valeria V Gordan
Author Affiliation
Department of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, College of Dentistry, University of Florida in Gainesville, USA.
Source
Gen Dent. 2010 May-Jun;58(3):230-4
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Child
Child, Preschool
Community Dentistry - statistics & numerical data
Dental Caries - prevention & control
Dental Caries Susceptibility
Dental Research - organization & administration
Dentist's Practice Patterns - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Male
Risk Assessment - utilization
Scandinavia
United States
Abstract
This study surveyed Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) member dentists (from four regions in the U.S. and Scandinavia) who perform restorative dentistry in their practices. The survey asked a range of questions about caries risk assessment in patients aged 6 to 18. Among respondents, 73% of dentists reported performing caries risk assessment among these patients, while 14% assessed caries risk by using a special form. Regions in which most dentists were in a private practice model were the least likely to perform caries risk assessment, while regions where most dentists practiced in a large group practice model were the most likely to use a special form for caries risk assessment. Recent graduates from dental school were more likely to use a caries risk assessment compared to older graduates. Current oral hygiene, decreased salivary flow, and the presence of active caries were rated as the most important caries factors. Some differences by region were also evident for the risk factor ratings. These results suggest that not all community dentists assess caries risk. The results of this study also indicate considerable variability in dentists' views concerning the importance of specific caries risk factors in treatment planning and weak evidence that caries risk assessment is driving clinical practice when preventive treatment recommendations are being considered.
Notes
Cites: J Dent Educ. 1999 Oct;63(10):745-710572540
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):1009-1611699971
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):1017-2311699972
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):1063-7211699978
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):1126-3211699989
Cites: J Dent Res. 2002 Jul;81(7):455-812161455
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997 Feb;25(1):97-1039088698
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 1998 Jun;56(3):179-869688230
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2005 May;69(5):538-5415897335
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2005 Spring;65(2):76-8115929544
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;33(4):256-6416008632
Cites: Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005 Nov;15(6):420-816238652
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2005-2006;27(7 Suppl):84-616541901
Cites: Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 May;16(3):152-6016643535
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2006 Summer;66(3):169-7316913242
Cites: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006 Mar;7(1):31-717140525
Cites: Int Dent J. 2007 Jun;57(3):177-8317695739
Cites: J Calif Dent Assoc. 2007 Oct;35(10):703-7, 710-318044378
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: Oral Health Prev Dent. 2007;5(4):299-30618173091
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2008 Jan-Feb;30(1):49-5318402099
Cites: Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008 Jul;18(4):275-8318284473
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
PubMed ID
20478803 View in PubMed
Less detail

Electronic dental record use and clinical information management patterns among practitioner-investigators in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature117584
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Jan;144(1):49-58
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2013
Author
Titus Schleyer
Mei Song
Gregg H Gilbert
D Brad Rindal
Jeffrey L Fellows
Valeria V Gordan
Ellen Funkhouser
Author Affiliation
Center for Dental Informatics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Terrace St., Suite 339, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. titus@pitt.edu
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Jan;144(1):49-58
Date
Jan-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Appointments and Schedules
Attitude of Health Personnel
Attitude to Computers
Community-Based Participatory Research
Computer Systems - utilization
Data Mining - utilization
Dental Informatics
Dental Records - classification
Dental Research
Dentists - psychology
Diagnosis, Oral
Electronic Health Records - utilization
Female
Group Practice, Dental - organization & administration
Health Information Management
Humans
Male
Medical History Taking
Patient Care Planning
Practice Management, Dental - organization & administration
Private Practice - organization & administration
Radiography, Dental
Scandinavia
United States
Abstract
The growing availability of electronic data offers practitioners increased opportunities for reusing clinical data for research and quality improvement. However, relatively little is known about what clinical data practitioners keep on their computers regarding patients.
The authors conducted a web-based survey of 991 U.S. and Scandinavian practitioner-investigators (P-Is) in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network to determine the extent of their use of computers to manage clinical information; the type of patient information they kept on paper, a computer or both; and their willingness to reuse electronic dental record (EDR) data for research.
A total of 729 (73.6 percent) of 991 P-Is responded.A total of 73.8 percent of U.S. solo practitioners and 78.7 percent of group practitioners used a computer to manage some patient information, and 14.3 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively, managed all patient information on a computer. U.S. practitioners stored appointments, treatment plans, completed treatment and images electronically most frequently, and the periodontal charting, diagnosis, medical history, progress notes and the chief complaint least frequently.More than 90 percent of Scandinavian practitioners stored all information electronically.A total of 50.8 percent of all P-Is were willing to reuse EDR data for research, and 63.1 percent preferred electronic forms for data collection.
The results of this study show that the trend toward increased adoption of EDRs in the United States is continuing, potentially making more data in electronic form available for research. Participants appear to be willing to reuse EDR data for research and to collect data electronically.
The rising rates of EDR adoption may offer increased opportunities for reusing electronic data for quality improvement and research.
Notes
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2011 Apr;75(4):453-6521460266
Cites: BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):107012750210
Cites: Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Oct;67(5):503-2720150441
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 1;151(5):338-4019638402
Cites: Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Jul;30(4):300-1619345286
Cites: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):409-1219261944
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;21(4):356-718612063
Cites: Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):75-8418283084
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):196-20317341757
Cites: Inform Prim Care. 2006;14(3):203-917288707
Cites: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 May-Jun;13(3):344-5216501177
Cites: J Can Dent Assoc. 2006 Mar;72(2):14516545175
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):93-716492011
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Jun;136(6):728-3716022037
Cites: Ann Fam Med. 2005 May-Jun;3 Suppl 1:S21-915928215
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2005 Winter;65(1):21-3515751492
Cites: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004 Mar;22(1):6-1015119513
Cites: Br Dent J. 2003 Nov 22;195(10):585-90; discussion 57914631436
Cites: BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:2619832991
PubMed ID
23283926 View in PubMed
Less detail

General practitioners' use of caries-preventive agents in adult patients versus pediatric patients: findings from the dental practice-based research network.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature143171
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141(6):679-87
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2010
Author
Joseph L Riley
Valeria V Gordan
D Brad Rindal
Jeffrey L Fellows
O Dale Williams
Lloyd K Ritchie
Gregg H Gilbert
Author Affiliation
Department of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Source
J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Jun;141(6):679-87
Date
Jun-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use
Cariostatic Agents - therapeutic use
Chewing Gum
Child
Child, Preschool
Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use
Dentist's Practice Patterns - statistics & numerical data
Female
Fluorides - therapeutic use
Fluorides, Topical - therapeutic use
General Practice, Dental - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Infant
Insurance, Dental - statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Mouthwashes - therapeutic use
Pit and Fissure Sealants - therapeutic use
Risk assessment
Scandinavia
Self Care
Sweetening Agents - therapeutic use
United States
Xylitol - therapeutic use
Young Adult
Abstract
In this study, the authors tested the frequency of dentists' recommendations for and use of caries-preventive agents for children as compared with adults.
The authors surveyed 467 general dentists in the Dental Practice-Based Research Network who practice within the United States and treat both pediatric and adult patients. They asked dentists to identify the percentage of their patients for whom they had administered or recommended dental sealants, in-office and at-home fluoride, chlorhexidine rinse and xylitol gum.
Dentists were less likely to provide adult patients than pediatric patients with in-office caries-preventive agents. However, the rate at which they recommended at-home preventive regimens for the two groups of patients was similar. Dentists with a conservative approach to caries treatment were the most likely to use and recommend the use of caries-preventive agents at similar rates in adults as in children. In addition, dentists in practices with a greater number of patients who had dental insurance were significantly more likely to provide in-office fluoride or sealants to adult patients than to pediatric patients.
General dentists use in-office caries-preventive agents more commonly with their pediatric patients than with their adult patients.
General dentists should consider providing additional in-office caries-preventive agents for their adult patients who are at increased risk of experiencing dental caries.
Notes
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD00183015266455
Cites: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 Aug 17;50(RR-14):1-4211521913
Cites: ASDC J Dent Child. 1995 Jul-Aug;62(4):250-57593882
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 1996 Winter;56(1):12-218667312
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 1996 Mar;127(3):335-438819780
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 1997 Mar;128(3):337-459066218
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 1998 Jun;56(3):179-869688230
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Feb;136(2):171-8; quiz 23015782520
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;33(3):181-9515853841
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2005 May;69(5):538-5415897335
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Aug;137(8):1151-916873333
Cites: J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2006 Mar;6(1):91-10017138407
Cites: Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 Dec;114(6):449-5517184224
Cites: J Dent Res. 2007 May;86(5):410-517452559
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2007 May;71(5):572-817493965
Cites: Quintessence Int. 2000 Mar;31(3):165-7911203922
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2004 Jun;62(3):170-615370638
Cites: J Dent. 2007 Jul;35(7):570-717478027
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-717899898
Cites: J Calif Dent Assoc. 2007 Nov;35(11):799-80518080486
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Mar;139(3):257-6818310730
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Mar;139(3):271-8; quiz 357-818310731
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2004 Winter;64(1):20-515078057
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 Dec;61(6):321-3014960003
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2003 Apr;67(4):448-5812749574
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 Feb;61(1):29-3312635778
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):393-41412412954
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2001 Sep-Oct;23(5):401-611699162
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):972-811699999
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Oct;132(10):1442-51; quiz 146111680361
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Jul;131(7):961-810916334
PubMed ID
20516100 View in PubMed
Less detail

Institutional review board and regulatory solutions in the dental PBRN.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature149018
Source
J Public Health Dent. 2010;70(1):19-27
Publication Type
Article
Date
2010
Author
Gregg H Gilbert
Vibeke Qvist
Sheila D Moore
D Brad Rindal
Jeffrey L Fellows
Valeria V Gordan
O Dale Williams
Author Affiliation
Department of Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA. ghg@uab.edu
Source
J Public Health Dent. 2010;70(1):19-27
Date
2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Clinical Trials as Topic - ethics - legislation & jurisprudence
Computer Communication Networks
Dental Research - ethics - legislation & jurisprudence - organization & administration
Ethics Committees, Research - organization & administration
Financing, Government - ethics - legislation & jurisprudence
Government Regulation
Humans
Informed consent
Research Subjects - legislation & jurisprudence
Scandinavia
United States
Abstract
Effectively addressing regulatory and human participant protection issues with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs, or ethics committees) and grants administration entities is an important component of conducting research in large collaborative networks. A dental practice-based research network called "DPBRN" (http://www.DPBRN.org) comprises dentists in two health maintenance organizations, several universities, seven US states, and three Scandinavian countries. Our objectives are to describe: a) the various human participants and regulatory requirements and solutions for each of DPBRN's five regions; b) their impact on study protocols and implementation; and c) lessons learned from this process.
Following numerous discussions with IRB and grants administrative personnel for each region, some practitioner-investigators are attached to their respective IRBs and contracting entities via sub-contracts between their organizations and the network's administrative site. Others are attached via Individual Investigator Agreements and contractually obligated via Memoranda of Agreement.
IRBs approve general operations under one approval, but specific research projects via separate approvals. Various formal IRB and grants administrative agreements have been arranged to customize research to the network context. In some instances, this occurred after feedback from patients and practitioners that lengthy written consent forms impeded research and raised suspicion, instead of decreasing it.
Instead of viewing IRBs and institutional administrators as potentially adversarial, customized solutions can be identified by engaging them in collegial discussions that identify common ground within regulatory bounds. Although time-intensive and complex, these solutions improve acceptability of practice-based research to patients, practitioners, and university researchers.
Notes
Cites: J Investig Med. 2003 Mar;51(2):64-7112643510
Cites: JAMA. 2003 Jul 16;290(3):360-612865377
Cites: Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4 Suppl):III45-915026664
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2005 Feb;40(1):291-30715663714
Cites: J Nutr. 2005 Apr;135(4):921-415795462
Cites: Ann Fam Med. 2005 May-Jun;3 Suppl 1:S30-715928216
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Jun;136(6):728-3716022037
Cites: Am J Surg. 2005 Nov;190(5):805-916226962
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):1-1016491999
Cites: Ann Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;16(4):275-816005245
Cites: JAMA. 2007 Jan 24;297(4):403-617244837
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):181-717341755
Cites: Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Apr;14(4):377-8017312334
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1773-8217610447
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
PubMed ID
19694937 View in PubMed
Less detail

Lessons learned during the conduct of clinical studies in the dental PBRN.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature135633
Source
J Dent Educ. 2011 Apr;75(4):453-65
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2011
Author
Gregg H Gilbert
Joshua S Richman
Valeria V Gordan
D Brad Rindal
Jeffrey L Fellows
Paul L Benjamin
Martha Wallace-Dawson
O Dale Williams
Author Affiliation
Birmingham, SDB Room 109, 1530 3 Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA. ghg@uab.edu
Source
J Dent Educ. 2011 Apr;75(4):453-65
Date
Apr-2011
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Community-Based Participatory Research
Data Collection
Dental Research - methods
Dentist's Practice Patterns
Humans
Patient Participation
Research Design
Research Personnel
Scandinavia
United States
Abstract
Effectively addressing challenges of conducting research in nonacademic settings is crucial to its success. A dental practice-based research network called The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) is comprised of practitioner- investigators in two health maintenance organizations, several universities, many U.S. states, and three Scandinavian countries. Our objective in this article is to describe lessons learned from conducting studies in this research context; the studies are conducted by clinicians in community settings who may be doing their first research study. To date, twenty-one studies have been completed or are in implementation. These include a broad range of topic areas, enrollment sizes, and study designs. A total of 1,126 practitioner-investigators have participated in at least one study. After excluding one study because it involved electronic records queries only, these studies included more than 70,000 patient/participant units. Because the DPBRN is committed to being both practitioner- and patient-driven, all studies must be approved by its Executive Committee and a formal study section of academic clinical scientists. As a result of interacting with a diverse range of institutional and regulatory entities, funding agencies, practitioners, clinic staff, patients, academic scientists, and geographic areas, twenty-three key lessons have been learned. Patients' acceptance of these studies has been very high, judging from high participation rates and their completion of data forms. Early studies substantially informed later studies with regard to study design, practicality, forms design, informed consent process, and training and monitoring methods. Although time-intensive and complex, these solutions improved acceptability of practice-based research to patients, practitioners, and university researchers.
Notes
Cites: Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):476-8320182121
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Apr;141(4):441-820354094
Cites: Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2010 Mar;235(3):290-920404046
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2010 Winter;70(1):19-2719694937
Cites: Child Care Health Dev. 2010 May;36(3):385-9120507330
Cites: Gen Dent. 2010 Nov-Dec;58(6):520-821062721
Cites: J Investig Med. 2003 Mar;51(2):64-7112643510
Cites: Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4 Suppl):III45-915026664
Cites: Ann Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;4(1):8-1416449391
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):1-1016491999
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):75-8416492009
Cites: JAMA. 2007 Jan 24;297(4):403-617244837
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):105-1417341746
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):181-717341755
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(5):e3818984559
Cites: Circulation. 2009 May 19;119(19):2633-4219451365
Cites: J Am Board Fam Med. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):428-3519587258
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
Cites: BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:2619832991
PubMed ID
21460266 View in PubMed
Less detail

Use of caries-preventive agents in children: findings from the dental practice-based research network.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature138394
Source
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010;8(4):351-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
2010
Author
J L Riley
Joshua S Richman
D Brad Rindal
Jeffrey L Fellows
Vibeke Qvist
Gregg H Gilbert
Valeria V Gordan
Author Affiliation
Department of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Source
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2010;8(4):351-9
Date
2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use
Cariostatic Agents - therapeutic use
Chewing Gum
Child
Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use
Community-Based Participatory Research
Dental Caries - prevention & control
Dental Caries Susceptibility
Dentist's Practice Patterns
Female
Fluorides - therapeutic use
Fluorides, Topical - therapeutic use
Group Practice, Dental
Humans
Male
Mouthwashes - therapeutic use
Pit and Fissure Sealants - therapeutic use
Private Practice
Professional Practice
Public Health Dentistry
Risk assessment
Scandinavia
United States
Abstract
Scientific evidence supports the application of caries-preventive agents in children and adolescents, and this knowledge must be applied to the practice of dentistry. There are few multi-region data that allow for comparisons of practice patterns between types of dental practices and geographical regions. The objective of the present study was to characterise the use of specific caries-preventive agents for paediatric patients in a large multi-region sample of practising clinicians.
The present study surveyed clinicians from the Dental Practice-based Research Network who perform restorative dentistry in their practices. The survey consisted of a questionnaire that presented a range of questions about caries risk assessment and the use of preventive techniques in children aged 6 to 18 years.
Dental sealants (69%) or in-office fluoride (82%) were the most commonly used caries-preventive agents of the caries preventive regimens. The recommendation of at-home caries-preventive agents ranged from 36% to 7%,with the most commonly used agent being non-prescription fluoride rinse. Clinicians who practised in a large group practice model and clinicians who come from the Scandinavian region use caries risk assessment more frequently compared to clinicians who come from regions that had, predominantly, clinicians in private practice. Whether or not clinicians used caries risk assessment with their paediatric patients was poorly correlated with the likelihood of actually using caries-preventive treatments on patients.
Although clinicians reported the use of some form of in-office caries-preventive agent, there was considerable variability across practices. These differences could represent a lack of consensus across practising clinicians about the benefits of caries-preventive agents, or a function of differing financial incentives, or patient pools with differing levels of overall caries risk.
Notes
Cites: Caries Res. 2005 Nov-Dec;39(6):455-6716251789
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2006 Sep;70(9):956-6416954417
Cites: J Indiana Dent Assoc. 2007 Summer;86(2):10-3, 1517987822
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jan;139(1):74-8118167389
Cites: J Dent Hyg. 2008 Winter;82(1):1018269811
Cites: J Can Dent Assoc. 2008 Feb;74(1):73-918298889
Cites: J Can Dent Assoc. 2008 Mar;74(2):171-718353204
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2008 Jan-Feb;30(1):49-5318402099
Cites: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008 May;13(5):E325-3018449118
Cites: Gen Dent. 2009 May-Jun;57(3):270-519819818
Cites: ASDC J Dent Child. 1995 Jul-Aug;62(4):250-57593882
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 2000 Winter;60(1):33-810734614
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Jul;131(7):961-810916334
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Oct;132(10):1442-51; quiz 146111680361
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):972-811699999
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2001 Oct;65(10):1063-7211699978
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2001 Sep-Oct;23(5):401-611699162
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2006 Feb;137(2):190-616521385
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;29(6):399-41111784283
Cites: Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002 Jul;31(4):232-912087440
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;30(5):363-812236827
Cites: Pediatr Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;24(5):386-9212412953
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 Feb;61(1):29-3312635778
Cites: Br Dent J. 2003 Mar 22;194(6):329-32; discussion 31812682660
Cites: J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Sep;134(9):1195-20214528991
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 2004 Aug;62(4):223-3015513419
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995 Aug;23(4):211-67587141
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 1996 Winter;56(1):12-218667312
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997 Feb;25(1):97-1039088698
Cites: J Public Health Dent. 1997 Summer;57(3):171-59383756
Cites: Acta Odontol Scand. 1998 Jun;56(3):179-869688230
Cites: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998 Aug;26(4):263-719758427
Cites: J Dent Educ. 2007 May;71(5):572-817493965
PubMed ID
21180672 View in PubMed
Less detail

7 records – page 1 of 1.