BackgroundDentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a common problem encountered in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify the management approaches for DH among United States dentists.MethodsOne hundred eighty five National Dental Practice-Based Research Network clinicians completed a questionnaire regarding their preferred methods to diagnose and manage DH in the practice setting, and their beliefs about DH predisposing factors.ResultsAlmost all dentists (99%) reported using more than one method to diagnose DH. Most frequently, they reported using spontaneous patient reports coupled with excluding other causes of oral pain by direct clinical examination (48%); followed by applying an air blast (26%), applying cold water (12%), and obtaining patient reports after dentist’s query (6%). In managing DH, the most frequent first choice was desensitizing, over-the-counter (OTC), potassium nitrate toothpaste (48%), followed by fluorides (38%), and glutaraldehyde/HEMA (3%). A total of 86% of respondents reported using a combination of products when treating DH, most frequently using fluoride varnish and desensitizing OTC potassium nitrate toothpaste (70%). The most frequent predisposing factor leading to DH, as reported by the practitioners, was recessed gingiva (66%), followed by abrasion, erosion, abfraction/attrition lesions (59%) and bruxism (32%).ConclusionsThe majority of network practitioners use multiple methods to diagnose and manage DH. Desensitizing OTC potassium nitrate toothpaste and fluoride formulations are the most widely used products to manage DH in dental practice setting.

These findings suggest an important role for outreach and engagement strategies that address attitudinal barriers to treatment utilization among veteran populations.

Purpose: This study examines practitioner participation over 12 years in National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) studies and practitioner meetings, average length of participation, and association between practitioner- and practice-level characteristics and participation. Little information exists about practitioners’ long-term participation in PBRNs. Methods: The network conducted a retrospective analysis of practitioner participation in three main network activities during 2005–2017. Practitioners who completed an enrollment questionnaire, practiced in the U.S., and either attended a network meeting or received an invitation to complete a questionnaire or clinical study were included in the analysis. 3,669 practitioners met inclusion criteria. The network implemented 38 studies (28 clinical and 10 questionnaire), 23 of which (15 clinical and 8 questionnaire) met the criteria for the current analysis. Results: Overall, 86% (N=3,148) participated in at least one network activity during 2005–2017. Questionnaire studies had the highest rate with 81% (N=2,963) completing at least one, 21% (N=762) completed at least 1 clinical study and 19% (N=700) attended at least one network meeting. Among 1,578 practitioners enrolled in the first five years of the Network launch, 20% (N=320) participated in multiple network activities over 5–9 years, and 14% (N= 238) for 10–12 years. Practitioner characteristics associated with participation varied depending on the activity assessed. Conclusion: The network engaged practitioners in its research activities with relatively high participation rates over a 12-year period. Strategies employed by the network to engage practitioners may serve as a model for PBRN networks for other allied health professions.