This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85–1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17–1.45), and naproxen 400–440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07–1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.

Background The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends dental providers apply dental sealants to the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars for the prevention or treatment of non-cavitated dental caries. Despite the evidence-based support for this guideline, adherence among general dentists is low, ranging from less than 5 to 38.5%. Thus, an evidence-to-practice gap exists, and it is unclear which implementation strategies would best support providers in adopting and implementing the evidence-based practice. One potential approach to selecting and tailoring implementation strategies is a deliberative loop process, a stakeholder-engaged approach to decision-making. This trial aims to test the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of using a deliberative loop intervention with stakeholders (i.e., providers and staff) to enable managers to select implementation strategies that facilitate the adoption of an evidence-based dental practice. Methods Sixteen dental clinics within Kaiser Permanente Northwest Dental will be cluster randomized to determine the timing of receiving the intervention in this stepped-wedge trial. In the three-part deliberative loop intervention, clinic stakeholders engage in the following activities: (1) receive background information, (2) participate in facilitated small-group discussions designed to promote learning from each other’s lived experiences and develop informed opinions about effective clinic-level implementation strategies, and (3) share their informed opinions with clinic leaders, who may then choose to select and deploy implementation strategies based on the stakeholders’ informed opinions. The primary outcome of Reach will be defined as patient-level receipt of guideline-concordant care. Secondary outcomes will include the cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of the deliberative loop process. Implementation strategies deployed will be catalogued over time. Discussion These results will establish the extent to which the deliberative loop process can help leaders select and tailor implementation strategies with the goal of improving guideline-concordant dental care. Trial registration This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice to implementing the American Dental Association’s recommendation for sealing noncavitated occlusal carious lesions as established in their 2016 pit-and-fissure sealant clinical practice guideline. Although previous research has identified barriers to using sealants perceived by dentists in private practice, barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in large, multi-site dental practices have yet to be identified. Identifying barriers for these dentists is important, because it is expected that in the future, the multi-site group practice configuration will comprise more dental practices.MethodsWe anonymously surveyed the 110 general and pediatric dentists at a multi-site dental practice in the U.S. The survey assessed potential barriers in three domains: practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe response rate to the survey was 62%. The principal barrier characterizing the practice environment was concern regarding liability; endorsed by 33% of the dentists. Many barriers of prevailing opinion were frequently endorsed. These included misunderstanding the standard of practice (59%), being unaware of the expectations of opinion leaders (56%) including being unaware of the guideline itself (67%), and being unaware of what is currently being taught in dental schools (58%). Finally, barriers of knowledge and attitudes were frequently endorsed. These included having suboptimal skill in applying sealants (23% - 47%) and lacking knowledge regarding the relative efficacy of the different ways to manage noncavitated occlusal carious lesions (50%).ConclusionsWe identified barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice relating to the practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. All the barriers we identified have the potential to be addressed by implementation strategies. Future studies should devise and test implementation strategies to target these barriers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0480-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: This evaluation captures the perspectives of multiple stakeholders within a salaried dental care delivery organization (dentists, dental assistants, dental hygienists, and dental management) on the implementation of a pit-and-fissure sealant guideline in the Kaiser Permanente Dental Program. Also assessed is the role of formal processes and structures in providing a framework for guideline implementation. Methods: We collected qualitative data through field observations, stakeholder interviews (n = 6), and focus groups (30 participants in 5 focus groups). Field observation notes captured summaries of conversations and other activities. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. We analyzed transcripts and field notes using a template analysis with NVivo 12 software to identify themes related to the existing implementation process of clinical guidelines and stakeholder perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of this process. Results: Stakeholders perceived 2 main barriers for achieving implementation of the pit-and-fissure sealant guideline: 1) shortcomings in the implementation infrastructure resulting in lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities in the guideline implementation process and lack of effective mechanisms to disseminate guideline content and 2) resource constraints, such as limited human, space, and material resources. Perceived opportunities for the dissemination and implementation of guidelines included recognition of the importance of guidelines in dental practice and well-functioning workflows within dental specialties. Conclusion: Our research points to the importance of developing and maintaining an infrastructure to ensure standardized, predictable mechanisms for implementation of guidelines and thereby promoting practice change. While addressing resource constraints may not be possible in all circumstances, an important step for improving guideline implementation—wherever feasible—would be the development of a robust implementation infrastructure that captures and delineates roles and responsibilities of different clinical actors in the guideline implementation process. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by health care leadership and administrators to understand possible reasons for a lack of guideline implementation and provide suggestions for establishing sustainable infrastructure to promote the adoption of clinical guidelines in salaried dental clinics.

No abstract