Objective: A controversy exists concerning the relationship, if any, between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the anatomical position of the anterior teeth. Specifi cally, there has been speculation that extraction orthodontics and retraction of the anterior teeth contributes to OSA by crowding the tongue and decreasing airway space. This retrospective study utilized electronic medical and dental health records to examine the association between missing premolars and OSA. Methods: The sample (n = 5,584) was obtained from the electronic medical and dental health records of HealthPartners in Minnesota. Half of the subjects (n = 2,792) had one missing premolar in each quadrant. The other half had no missing premolars. Cases and controls were paired in a 1:1 match on age range, gender, and body mass index (BMI) range. The outcome was the presence or absence of a diagnosis of OSA confi rmed by polysomnography.

Chemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.

Background: Preventable medical errors in hospital settings are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. However, less is known about harm that occurs in patients in outpatient settings, where the majority of care is delivered. We do not know the likelihood that a patient sitting in a dentist chair will experience harm. Additionally, we do not know if patients of certain race, age, sex, or socioeconomic status disproportionately experience iatrogenic harm. Methods:We initiated the Dental Practice Study (DPS) with the aim of determining the frequency and types of adverse events (AEs) that occur in dentistry on the basis of retrospective chart audit. This article discusses the 6-month pilot phase of the DPS during which we explored the feasibility and efficiency of our multistaged review process to detect AEs.Results: At sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 2 reviewers abstracted 21, 11, and 23 probable AEs, respectively, from the 100 patient charts audited per site. At site 2, a third reviewer audited the same 100 charts and found only 1 additional probable AE. Of the total 56 probable AEs (from 300 charts), the expert panel confirmed 9 AE cases. This equals 3 AEs per 100 patients per year. Patients who experienced an AE tended to be male and older and to have undergone more procedures within the study year.Conclusions: This article presents an overview of the DPS. It describes the methods used and summarizes the results of its pilot phase. To minimize threats to dental patient safety, a starting point is to understand their basic epidemiology, both in terms of their frequency and the extent to which they affect different populations.

Background Overdose deaths from prescription opioid analgesics are a continuing crisis in the United States. Opioid analgesics are among the most frequently prescribed drugs by dentists. An estimated 5 million people undergo third-molar extractions in the United States each year, resulting in postoperative pain. Studies show that, in most cases, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is an effective alternative to commonly prescribed opioid analgesics for the management of postextraction pain. Nevertheless, many dentists routinely prescribe opioids after dental extractions. Objective We describe the rationale, design, and methods for a randomized trial of interventions designed to de-implement opioid prescribing by dentists while implementing effective nonopioid analgesics following dental extractions. Methods Using a prospective, 3-arm, cluster randomized trial design with dentists as the unit randomized and patient-level prescribing data as the primary outcome, we will compare different strategies to reduce the reliance on opioids and increase the use of alternative pain management approaches utilizing information support tools aimed at both providers and their patients. The study will test the efficacy of 2 interventions to decrease opioid prescribing following dental extractions: clinical decision support with (CDS-E) and without patient education (CDS). Providers will be randomized to CDS, CDS-E, or standard practice. Patient-level outcomes will be determined via review of comprehensive electronic health records. We will compare study arms on differential change in prescribing patterns from pre- to postimplementation of the intervention. The primary outcome of interest is a binary indicator of whether or not the patient received an opioid prescription on the day of the extraction encounter. We will also examine recommendations or prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics, patients’ perceptions of shared decision making, and patients’ pain experiences following the extraction. Results The HealthPartners Institutional Review Board approved the study. All study materials including the CDS and patient education materials have been developed and pilot tested, and the protocol has been approved by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The intervention was implemented in February 2020, with 51 dentists who were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms. Conclusions If the intervention strategies are shown to be effective, they could be implemented more broadly in dental settings with high levels of opioid prescribing. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03584789 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/24342

Background Drug overdose has become a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of deaths from drug overdoses increased 137%, including a 200% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioids (including opioid pain relievers and heroin). Unnecessary opioid prescribing is one of the factors driving this epidemic. Objectives The primary objective of this paper is to share lessons learned while conducting a randomized trial to de‐implement opioids for post‐extraction pain management utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) with and without patient education. The lessons learned from conducting this trial in a real‐world setting can be applied to future dissemination and implementation oral health research. Methods The sources informing lessons learned were generated from qualitative interviews conducted with 20 of the forty‐nine dental providers involved in the study following the implementation phase of the trial. Ongoing policy, social and environmental factors were tracked throughout the study. Results Dental providers in the trial identified the impact of training that involved health professionals sharing information about the personal impact of pain and opioid use. Additionally, they found utility in being presented with a dashboard detailing their prescribing patterns related to other dentists. For the 30 general dentists with access to the CDS, use of its portal varied widely, with most using it 10%–49% of the time related to extractions. Conclusions In the context of a downward trend in opioid prescribing and considering the influence of the COVID pandemic during the trial, dental providers indicated benefit in training about negative personal impacts of prescribing opioids, and personally relevant feedback about their prescribing patterns. Only modest use of the CDS was realized. Implementation of this trial was impacted by governmental and health system policies and the COVID pandemic, prompt the consideration of implications regarding continuing ways to limit opioid prescribing among dental providers.