Barriers to and facilitators of opioid prescribing by dentists in the United States: A qualitative study

BackgroundDentists in the United States frequently prescribe opioids for dental-related pain, although evidence shows superior efficacy of nonopioids for pain management. A national sample of US dentists was interviewed to understand the barriers and facilitators to opioid prescribing.MethodsSemistructured one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted with dentists sampled from the 6 regions of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Responses were coded into the domains of the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Potential behavior change interventions were identified for targeted themes.ResultsSeventy-three interviews were qualitatively analyzed. Most of those interviewed were general dentists (86.3%) and on average (SD) were in practice for 24.3 (13.0) years. Ten themes were identified within the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Dentists’ knowledge of opioid risk, ability to identify substance use disorder behavior, and capability of communicating pain management plans to patients or following clinic policies or state and federal regulations were linked with judicious opioid prescribing. Dentists reported prescribing opioids if they determined clinical necessity or feared negative consequences for refusing to prescribe opioids.ConclusionsDentists’ opioid decision making is influenced by a range of real-world practice experiences and patient and clinic factors. Education and training that target dentists’ knowledge gaps and changes in dentists’ practice environment can encourage effective communication of pain management strategies with patients and prescribing of nonopioids as first-line analgesics while conserving opioid use.Practical ImplicationsIdentified knowledge gaps in dentistry can be targets for education, clinical guidelines, and policy interventions to ensure safe and appropriate prescribing of opioids.     

Trends in use of dental care provider types and services in the United States in 2000-2016: Rural-urban comparisons

BackgroundThe authors conducted a study to assess recent trends in dental care provider mix (type of dental professionals visited) and service mix (types of dental procedures) use in the United States and to assess rural-urban disparities.MethodsData were from the 2000 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The sample was limited to respondents who reported at least 1 dental visit to a dental professional in the survey year (N = 138,734 adults ≥ 18 years). The authors estimated rates of visiting 3 dental professionals and undergoing 5 dental procedures and assessed the time trends by rural-urban residence and variation within rural areas. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between rural and urban residence and service and provider mix.ResultsA decreasing trend was observed in visiting a general dentist, and an increasing trend was observed in visiting a dental hygienist for both urban and rural residents (trend P values < .001). An increasing trend in having preventive procedures and a decreasing trend in having restorative and oral surgery procedures were observed only for urban residents (trend P values < .001). The combined data for 2000 through 2016 showed that rural residents were less likely to receive diagnostic services (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.93) and preventive services (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96), and more likely to receive restorative (AOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.21) and oral surgery services (AOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.37).ConclusionsAlthough preventive dental services increased while surgical procedures decreased from 2000 through 2016 in the United States, significant oral health care disparities were found between rural and urban residents.Practical ImplicationsThese results of this study may help inform future initiatives to improve oral health in underserved communities. By understanding the types of providers visited and dental services received, US dentists will be better positioned to meet their patients’ oral health needs.     

Analgesics for the management of acute dental pain in the pediatric population: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe authors assessed the clinical effectiveness of analgesics to manage acute pain after dental extractions and pain associated with irreversible pulpitis in children.Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials registry from inception through November 2020. They included randomized controlled trials comparing any pharmacologic interventions with each other and a placebo in pediatric participants undergoing dental extractions or experiencing irreversible pulpitis. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsThe authors included 6 randomized controlled trials reporting 8 comparisons. Ibuprofen may reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen (mean difference [MD], 0.27 points; 95% CI, −0.13 to 0.68; low certainty) and a placebo (MD, −0.19 points; 95% CI, −0.58 to 0.21; low certainty). Acetaminophen may reduce pain intensity compared with a placebo (MD, −0.13 points; 95% CI, −0.52 to 0.26; low certainty). Acetaminophen and ibuprofen combined probably reduce pain intensity compared with acetaminophen alone (MD, −0.75 points; 95% CI, −1.22 to −0.27; moderate certainty) and ibuprofen alone (MD, −0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.53 to 0.51; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence regarding adverse effects.Practical ImplicationsSeveral pharmacologic interventions alone or in combination may provide a beneficial effect when managing acute dental pain in children. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the use of analgesics to manage irreversible pulpitis.     

Examining the association of medical-dental integration with closure of medical care gaps among the elderly population

BackgroundThe integration of medical and dental care in the dental setting offers a unique opportunity to close medical care gaps, such as providing immunizations and laboratory-based tests, compared with traditional nonintegrated settings.MethodsWe used a matched cohort study design among patients 65 years or older (n = 2,578) with an index dental visit to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest medical-dental integration (MDI) program from June 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. MDI patients were matched 1:1 to non-MDI controls (n = 2,578) on 14 characteristics. The Kaiser Permanente Northwest MDI program focuses on closing 23 preventive (for example, flu vaccines) and disease management care gaps (for example, glycated hemoglobin testing) within the dental setting. The closure of all care gaps (yes versus no) was the outcome for the analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between exposure to the MDI program and level of office integration (least, moderate, and most integration) with closure of care gaps. All data were obtained through Kaiser Permanente Northwest’s electronic health record.ResultsMDI patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 1.65) of closing all medical care gaps than non-MDI patients. Greater MDI integration was associated with significantly higher odds of gap closure compared with non-MDI (least integration: OR, 1.18, 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.37; moderate integration: OR, 1.70, 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.12; most integration: OR, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.50).ConclusionsPatients receiving dental care in an MDI program had higher odds of closing medical care gaps compared with similar patients receiving dental care in a non-MDI program.Practical ImplicationsMDI is effective at facilitating delivery of preventive and disease management medical services.     

The incidence of COVID-19 among dentists practicing in the community in Canada: A prospective cohort study over a 6-month period

BackgroundOral health care settings carry a potentially high risk of causing cross-infection between dentists and patients and among dental staff members due to close contact and use of aerosol-generating procedures. The authors aimed to estimate COVID-19 incidence rates among Canadian dentists over a 6-month period.MethodsThe authors conducted a prospective cohort study of 644 licensed dentists across Canada from July 29, 2020, through February 12, 2021. An online questionnaire, adapted from the World Health Organization’s Unity Studies protocols for assessment of COVID-19 risk among health care workers, was used to collect data on self-reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections every 4 weeks. A bayesian Poisson model was used to estimate the incidence rate and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CIs).ResultsMedian age of participants was 47 years; most participants were women (56.4%) and general practitioners (90.8%). Median follow-up time was 188 days. Six participants reported COVID-19 infections during the study period, giving an incidence rate of 5.10 per 100,000 person-days (95% CI, 1.86 to 9.91 per 100,000 person-days). The incidence proportion was estimated to be 1,084 per 100,000 dentists (95% CI, 438 to 2,011 per 100,000 dentists) and 1,864 per 100,000 people (95% CI, 1,859 to 1,868 per 100,000 people) in the Canadian population during the same period.ConclusionsThe low infection rate observed among Canadian dentists from July 29, 2020, through February 12, 2021, should be reassuring to the dental and general community.Practical ImplicationsAlthough the infection rates were low among Canadian dentists, it is important to continue to collect disease surveillance data.     

Emergency department visits for infectious oral conditions in Massachusetts, 2014 through 2018

BackgroundThe authors aimed to measure population-based preventable emergency department (ED) visits related to infectious oral conditions (IOCs) in Massachusetts and to examine the associated sociodemographic factors to support prevention efforts.MethodsA statewide retrospective analysis of ED visits related to IOCs in Massachusetts from 2014 through 2018 was conducted using a Center for Health Information and Analysis database. The authors described patients' characteristics, dental diagnoses frequencies, emergency severity, lengths of stay, associated treatment, and costs. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with IOC visits.ResultsIOC visits in 2014 through 2018 were 1.2% (149,777) of the total ED visits, with an estimated cost of $159.7 million. There was an annual decline in the prevalence of IOC visits from 2014 through 2018. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, odds of IOC were higher among males (adjusted odd ratio [AOR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.27), non-Hispanic Blacks compared with non-Hispanic Whites (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.06), people residing in dental health care professional shortage areas (AOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.07), public insurance beneficiaries (AOR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.87 to 1.93), or uninsured (AOR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.54 to 2.66) compared with privately insured.ConclusionsThere was an annual decline in the prevalence of IOC visits from 2014 through 2018. Higher odds of IOC visits were associated with young adults, Black patients, uninsured people, public insurance beneficiaries, and people who reside in dental health care professional shortage areas.Practical ImplicationsThe authors provided statewide data to support proposed policies to improve oral health care in Massachusetts. IOCs are mostly preventable, but well-coordinated care between medicine and dentistry is integral for prevention.     

Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThe authors aimed to compare the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) restorative material in multiunit tooth-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDP).Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors conducted a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no time or language restrictions, up to May 2019 using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, followed by a manual search.ResultsThe authors included 7 RCTs in the review and 5 RCTs in the meta-analysis. All studies had a low risk of bias. The authors included 330 participants (177 ZC and 173 MC tooth-supported FDP) in the meta-analysis, which revealed a medium-term survival rate of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5% to 99.1%) for ZC FDP compared with 96.9% (95% CI, 94.3% to 99.4%) for MC FDP, with no significant differences (P = .364). The biological or technical complications did not show statistically significant differences, except in the global ceramic veneering chipping analysis (P = .023; risk difference [RD], 22.3%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 41.6%) and their subanalysis: minor chipping or chipping that can be solved with polishing (P = .044; RD, 19.5%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 38.4%), and major chipping or chipping that needs repair in the laboratory (P = .023; RD, 6.0%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 11.3%).Conclusions and Practical ImplicationsPosterior multiunit ZC restorations are considered a predictable treatment in the medium term, although they are slightly more susceptible to chipping of the veneering ceramic than MC restorations.