Research on the information-seeking behaviors of dental practitioners is scarce. Knowledge of dentists' informationseeking behaviors should advance the translational gap between clinical dental research and dental practice. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to examine the self-reported information-seeking behaviors of dentists in three dental practice-based research networks (PBRNs). A total of 950 dentists (65 percent response rate) completed the survey. Dental journals and continuing dental education (CDE) sources used and their inluence on practice guidance were assessed. PBRN participation level and years since dental degree were measured. Full-participant dentists reported reading the Journal of the American Dental Association and General Dentistry more frequently than did their reference counterparts. Printed journals were preferred by most dentists. A lower proportion of full participants obtained their CDE credits at dental meetings compared to partial participants. Experienced dentists read other dental information sources more frequently than did less experienced dentists. Practitioners involved in a PBRN differed in their approaches to accessing information sources. Peer-reviewed sources were more frequently used by full participants and dentists with ifteen years of experience or more. Dental PBRNs potentially play a signiicant role in the dissemination of evidence-based information. This study found that speciic educational sources might increase and disseminate knowledge among dentists. T he term "information-seeking" is defined as the process of inquiry in which people purposefully engage to change their state of knowledge. 1,2 Previous research across numerous health disciplines has studied the information-seeking behaviors of a broad range of health providers. [3][4][5] The information-seeking sources available to and in use by health professionals, including dentistry, have diversiied over the past years. Online databases (e.g., PubMed), continuing dental education (CDE), communication with colleagues, professional organizations, study clubs, and peer-reviewed journals have been reported as the most common evidence sources utilized by health professionals. 6-9 A study by Bennett et al. found that family physicians were more likely than specialists to search the Internet

Objectives The aim of this study was to quantify the agreement among individual National Dental Practice-Based Research Network dentists’ self-reported treatment decisions for primary occlusal caries, primary proximal caries, and existing restorations. Methods Five hypothetical clinical scenarios were presented: primary occlusal caries; primary proximal caries; and whether three existing restorations should be repaired or replaced. We quantified the probability that dentists who recommended later restorative intervention for primary caries were the same ones who recommended that existing restorations be repaired instead of replaced. Results Dentists who recommended later restorative treatment of primary occlusal caries and proximal caries at a more-advanced stage were significantly more likely to recommend repair instead of replacement. Agreement among dentists on a threshold stage for the treatment of primary caries ranged from 40 to 68%, while that for repair or replacement of existing restorations was 36 to 43%. Conclusions Dentists who recommended repair rather than replacement of existing restorations were significantly more likely to recommend later treatment of primary caries. Conversely, dentists who recommended treatment of primary caries at an earlier stage were significantly more likely to recommend replacement of the entire restoration. Between-dentist agreement for primary caries treatment was better than between-dentist agreement for repair or replacement of existing restorations. Clinical implications These findings suggest consistency in how individual dentists approach the treatment of primary caries and existing restorations. However, substantial variation was found between dentists in their treatment decisions about the same teeth.

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 practitionerinvestigators 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 irst 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.

Objectives The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting clinical research using electronic dental record (EDR) data from U.S. solo and small-group general dental practices in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (network) and evaluate the data completeness and correctness before performing survival analyses of root canal treatment (RCT) and posterior composite restorations (PCR). Methods Ninety-nine network general dentistry practices that used Dentrix or EagleSoft EDR shared de-identified data of patients who received PCR and/or RCT on permanent teeth through October 31, 2015. We evaluated the data completeness and correctness, summarized practice, and patient characteristics and summarized the two treatments by tooth type and arch location. Results Eighty-two percent of practitioners were male, with a mean age of 49 and 22.4 years of clinical experience. The final dataset comprised 217,887 patients and 11,289,594 observations, with the observation period ranging from 0 to 37 years. Most patients (73%) were 18 to 64 years old; 56% were female. The data were nearly 100% complete. Eight percent of observations had incorrect data, such as incorrect tooth number or surface, primary teeth, supernumerary teeth, and tooth ranges, indicating multitooth procedures instead of PCR or RCT. Seventy-three percent of patients had dental insurance information; 27% lacked any insurance information. While gender was documented for all patients, race/ethnicity was missing in the dataset. Conclusion This study established the feasibility of using EDR data integrated from multiple distinct solo and small-group network practices for longitudinal studies to assess treatment outcomes. The results laid the groundwork for a learning health system that enables practitioners to learn about their patients' outcomes by using data from their own practice.

Aim Dentistry has been slow to adopt innovations in dental practice even when they are recommended by national organizations and supported by evidence-based guidelines. The objective of this review is to describe clinical inertia, a concept described frequently in the medical literature, and to use findings from tobacco cessation and dental sealant studies as evidence of its existence. Methods and Materials A review of the literature published during the past 30 years was conducted to determine the state of affairs of two very different areas of dental practice, tobacco cessation intervention and application of sealants, to demonstrate the concept of clinical inertia in dental practice. Factors such as over estimating services provided, unfounded reasons not to act, lack of adequate training, and competing demands that account for the inertia were examined. Discussion Clinical inertia is a complex concept that needs more attention in dentistry. A variety of strategies will be required to overcome it in order to provide the best care for the public. Conclusion Clinical inertia is a useful paradigm for explaining delays in the incorporation of new knowledge into clinical practice. It offers a model against which the broader dental community can develop and test strategies to reduce the delays in translating best practices into daily practices. Clinical Significance The path to providing state-of-the-art care for the public is to engage in the discovery, dissemination, and acquisition of new knowledge then transform it into evidence-based best practices to be used in daily clinical practice. Citation Rindal DB, Rush WA, Boyle RG. Clinical Inertia in Dentistry: A Review of the Phenomenon. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 January; (9)1:113-121.