Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices: A retrospective study by the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network

ObjectivesThe authors conducted a study to determine the types, outcomes, risk factors and esthetic assessment of implants and their restorations placed in the general practices of a practice-based research network.MethodsAll patients who visited network practices three to five years previously and underwent placement of an implant and restoration within the practice were invited to enroll. Practitioner-investigators (P-Is) recorded the status of the implant and restoration, characteristics of the implant site and restoration, presence of peri-implant pathology and an esthetic assessment by the P-I and patient. The P-Is classified implants as failures if the original implant was missing or had been replaced, the implant was mobile or elicited pain on percussion, there was overt clinical or radiographic evidence of pathology or excessive bone loss (> 0.2 millimeter per year after an initial bone loss of 2 mm). They classified restorations as failures if they had been replaced or if there was abutment or restoration fracture.ResultsThe authors enrolled 922 implants and patients from 87 practices, with a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 4.2 (0.6) years. Of the 920 implants for which complete data records were available, 64 (7.0 percent) were classified as failures when excessive bone loss was excluded from the analysis. When excessive bone loss was included, 172 implants (18.7 percent) were classified as failures. According to the results of univariate analysis, a history of severe periodontitis, sites with preexisting inflammation or type IV bone, cases of immediate implant placement and placement in the incisor or canine region were associated with implant failure. According to the results of multivariate analysis, sites with preexisting inflammation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.17; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.34]) or type IV bone (OR = 1.99; 95 percent CI, 1.12-3.55) were associated with a greater risk of implant failure. Of the 908 surviving implants, 20 (2.2 percent) had restorations replaced or judged as needing to be replaced. The majority of P-Is and patients were satisfied with the esthetic outcomes for both the implant and restoration.ConclusionsThese results suggest that implant survival and success rates in general dental practices may be lower than those reported in studies conducted in academic or specialty settings.Practical ImplicationsThe results of this study, generated in the private general practice setting, add to the evidence base to facilitate implant treatment planning.     

The creation and development of the dental practice-based research network

BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are consortia of practices committed to improving clinical practice. They have become more common and include dental PBRNs. Few reports in the literature, however, have addressed the structure and function of dental PBRNs. METHODS: After initial development in Alabama, the Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) now includes practitioner-investigators in seven U.S. states and three Scandinavian countries. Although most of the function and structure was developed at the inception of DPBRN, valuable input from practitioner-investigators has led to significant ongoing refinements. RESULTS: DPBRN practitioner-investigators have contributed to research at each stage of its development, leading to substantial improvements in study designs and customization of study protocols to their daily clinical practices. Practitioner-investigators also have helped refine the structure and function of DPBRN to foster the potential impact of research. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners from diverse settings are partnering with fellow practitioners and academics to improve daily clinical practice and meet the needs of clinicians and their patients in DPBRN. Practice Implications. Dental PBRNs can improve clinical practice by engaging dentists in the development and implementation of studies that are of direct interest to them and their patients, and by incorporating findings from these studies into their daily clinical practice.     

A survey of dental journal methodological practices: Reporting guidelines and ethical policies

Background

The authors evaluated instructions for author norms among existing dental journals and analyzed whether these journals address the practice of reporting guidelines and ethics policies.

Restorative outcomes for endodontically treated teeth in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning network

BackgroundThe authors aimed to determine the outcome of and factors associated with success and failure of restorations in endodontically treated teeth in patients in practices participating in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network.MethodsPractitioner-investigators (P-Is) invited the enrollment of all patients seeking care at participating practices who had undergone primary endodontic therapy and restoration in a permanent tooth three to five years earlier. P-Is classified endodontically reated teeth as restorative failures if the restoration was replaced, the restoration needed replacement or the tooth was cracked or fractured.ResultsP-Is from 64 practices enrolled in the study 1,298 eligible patients who had endodontically treated teeth that had been restored. The mean (standard deviation) time to follow-up was 3.9 (0.6) years. Of the 1,298 enrolled teeth, P-Is classified 181 (13.9 percent; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 12.1–15.8 percent) as restorative failures: 44 (3.4 percent) due to cracks or fractures, 57 (4.4 percent) due to replacement of the original restoration for reasons other than fracture and 80 (6.2 percent) due to need for a new restoration. When analyzing the results by means of multivariate logistic regression, the authors found a greater risk of restorative failure to be associated with canines or incisors and premolars (P = .04), intracoronal restorations (P < .01), lack of preoperative proximal contacts (P < .01), presence of periodontal connective-tissue attachment loss (P < .01), younger age (P = .01), Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (P = .04) and endodontic therapy not having been performed by a specialist (P = .04).ConclusionsThese results suggest that molars (as opposed to other types of teeth), full-coverage restorations, preoperative proximal contacts, good periodontal health, non-Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, endodontic therapy performed by a specialist and older patient age are associated with restorative success for endodontically treated teeth in general practice.Clinical ImplicationsThese results contribute to the clinical evidence base to help guide practitioners when planning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.     

Patient-reported receipt of oral cancer screenings and smoking cessation counseling from US oral health care providers: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2016

BackgroundOral health care providers are encouraged to screen for oral cancer (OC) and oropharyngeal cancer (OP) and promote smoking cessation to their patients. In this study, the authors investigated the prevalence and correlates of receiving OC and OP screening and tobacco and OC and OP counseling from oral health care providers.MethodsThe authors analyzed self-reported survey data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2015-2016 for participants who reported a dental visit. They created different samples for each subanalysis and categorized them according to smoking status. The authors calculated weighted proportions and adjusted odds for receiving tobacco counseling and screening for OC and OP in a dental office.ResultsOverall, 25.85% of US adults 30 years or older who had ever visited an oral health care professional received OC and OP screening. Odds of receiving an OC and OP screening were lower among current cigarette smokers than among never cigarette smokers (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.74) and among non-Hispanic blacks (AOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.59), Mexican Americans (AOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.53), non-Hispanic Asians (AOR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.35), and those of other races (AOR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.65), than among non-Hispanic whites. Participants with a high school education or more had higher odds of receiving an OC and OP screening (AOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.43) and counseling for screening (AOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.51) than did those with less than a high school education. Participants with family incomes of 400% or more of the federal poverty guideline had higher odds of receiving OC and OP screening (AOR, 5.17; 95% CI, 2.06 to 12.94) but lower odds of receiving tobacco counseling (AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.82) than did participants with family incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty guideline.ConclusionsOral health care providers underscreen for OC and OP among high-risk groups, including current cigarette smokers, minorities, and people of low socioeconomic status. The authors charge oral health care educators to include OC and OP screening and smoking cessation counseling in training and continuing education programs to increase the confidence of oral health care providers.Practical ImplicationsPotential to influence change on current pre-doctoral clinical training programs and to increase opportunities for continuing education courses that review the importance of, as well as, how to successfully complete smoking cessation counseling.     

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain in children: A report from the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute,the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine,and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania

BackgroundA guideline panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs, American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after 1 or more simple and surgical tooth extractions and the temporary management of toothache (that is, when definitive dental treatment not immediately available) associated with pulp and furcation or periapical diseases in children (< 12 years).Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of analgesics and corticosteroids in managing acute dental pain. They used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework to formulate recommendations.ResultsThe panel formulated 7 recommendations and 5 good practice statements across conditions. There is a small beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen compared with not providing analgesic therapy. There is no available evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on acute pain after surgical tooth extractions in children.Conclusions and Practical ImplicationsNonopioid medications, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen and naproxen alone or in combination with acetaminophen, are recommended for managing acute dental pain after 1 or more tooth extractions (that is, simple and surgical) and the temporary management of toothache in children (conditional recommendation, very low certainty). According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the use of codeine and tramadol in children for managing acute pain is contraindicated.     

Treatments for hypersensitive noncarious cervical lesions: A Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network randomized clinical effectiveness study

BackgroundThe Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network conducted a three-armed randomized clinical study to determine the comparative effectiveness of three treatments for hypersensitive noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs): use of a potassium nitrate dentifrice for treatment of hypersensitivity, placement of a resin-based composite restoration and placement of a sealant.MethodsSeventeen trained practitioner-investigators (P-Is) in the PEARL Network enrolled participants (N = 304) with hypersensitive posterior NCCLs who met enrollment criteria. Participants were assigned to treatments randomly. Evaluations were conducted at baseline and at one, three and six months thereafter. Primary outcomes were the reduction or elimination of hypersensitivity as measured clinically and by means of patient-reported outcomes.ResultsLesion depth and pretreatment sensitivity (mean, 5.3 on a 0- to 10-point scale) were balanced across treatments, as was sleep bruxism (present in 42.2 percent of participants). The six-month participant recall rate was 99 percent. Treatments significantly reduced mean sensitivity (P < .01), with the sealant and restoration groups displaying a significantly higher reduction (P < .01) than did the dentifrice group. The dentifrice group’s mean (standard deviation) sensitivity at six months was 2.1 (2.1); those of the sealant and restoration groups were 1.0 (1.6) and 0.8 (1.4), respectively. Patient-reported sensitivity (to cold being most pronounced) paralleled clinical measurements at each evaluation.ConclusionsSealing and restoration treatments were effective overall in reducing NCCL hypersensitivity. The potassium nitrate dentifrice reduced sensitivity with increasing effectiveness through six months but not to the degree offered by the other treatments.Practical ImplicationsSealant or restoration placement is an effective method of immediately reducing NCCL sensitivity. Although a potassium nitrate dentifrice did reduce sensitivity slowly across six months, at no time was the reduction commensurate with that of sealants or restorations.     

Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: A study from the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning Network

BackgroundThe objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resin-based composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH.MethodsPEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patient-reported outcomes.ResultsP-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and four-week POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes.ConclusionsUse of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups.Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.