No abstract

Objectives Dentists enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed a study questionnaire about techniques and materials used for single-unit crowns and an enrollment questionnaire about dentist/practice characteristics. The objectives were to quantify dentists’ material recommendations and test the hypothesis that dentist’s and practice’s characteristics are significantly associated with these recommendations. Methods Surveyed dentists responded to a contextual scenario asking what material they would use for a single-unit crown on an anterior and posterior tooth. Material choices included: full metal, porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-zirconia, layered zirconia, lithium disilicate, leucite-reinforced ceramic, or other. Results 1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists responded (83%). The top 3 choices for anterior crowns were lithium disilicate (54%), layered zirconia (17%), and leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (13%). There were significant differences (p<0.05) by dentist’s gender, race, years since graduation, practice type, region, practice busyness, hours worked/week, and location type. The top 3 choices for posterior crowns were all-zirconia (32%), PFM (31%), and lithium disilicate (21%). There were significant differences (p<0.05) by dentist’s gender, practice type, region, practice busyness, insurance coverage, hours worked/week, and location type. Conclusions Network dentists use a broad range of materials for single-unit crowns for anterior and posterior teeth, adopting newer materials into their practices as they become available. Material choices are significantly associated with dentist’s and practice’s characteristics. Clinical Significance Decisions for crown material may be influenced by factors unrelated to tooth and patient variables. Dentists should be cognizant of this when developing an evidence-based approach to selecting crown material.

BackgroundPractice-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.MethodsDPBRN 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).ResultsThere were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations.ConclusionAlthough 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.

SUMMARYRubber dam use during operative dentistry procedures has been quantified based on questionnaires completed by dentists. However, based on the knowledge of the authors of the current study, there are no reports based on use during actual clinical procedures other than in dental materials studies and none based on routine care. The objectives of the current study were to: 1) quantify how commonly the rubber dam is used during operative dentistry procedures; 2) test the hypothesis that certain dentist, restoration and patient-level factors are associated with its use. A routine aspect of procedures involving the placement of dental restorations is whether or not a rubber dam is used. This study documents the use of a rubber dam by dentists in non-academic routine clinical practice, finding that its use is low and significantly associated with certain dentist, restoration and patient characteristics. Most dentists (63%) did not use a rubber dam for any restoration in this study. A rubber dam was used for only 12% of restorations, 83% of which were used in one DPBRN region. With regions accounted for, no other dentist characteristics were significant. A multi-level multiple logistic regression of rubber dam use was done with restoration and patient-level variables modeled simultaneously. In this multi-variable context, these restoration-level characteristics were statistically significant: tooth-arch type, restoration classification and reason for placing the restoration. These patient-level characteristics were statistically significant: ethnicity, dental insurance and age. GH Gilbert • MSThese results, obtained from actual clinical procedures rather than questionnaires, document a low prevalence of usage of the rubber dam during operative dentistry procedures. Usage varied with certain dentist, restoration and patientlevel characteristics.

The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in the population is low, but specifics are unknown. Potential risk factors include bisphosphonate treatment, steroid treatment, osteoporosis, and head/neck radiation. This Dental Practice-Based Research Network study estimated ONJ incidence and odds ratios from bisphosphonate exposure and other risk factors using a key word search and manual chart reviews of electronic records for adults aged ≥ 35 yrs enrolled during 1995–2006 in two large health-care organizations. We found 16 ONJ cases among 572,606 cohort members; seven additional cases were identified through dental plan resources. Among 23 cases (0.63 per 100,000 patient years), 20 (87%) had at least one risk factor, and six (26%) had received oral bisphosphonates. Patients with oral bisphosphonates were 15.5 (CI, 6.0–38.7) more likely to have ONJ than non-exposed patients; however, the sparse number of ONJ cases limits firm conclusions and suggests that the absolute risks for ONJ from oral bisphosphonates is low.