Evidence-practice gap in treatment decisions about defective composite and amalgam restorations among Brazilian dentists

Q4 Dentistry
E. P. S. Tagliaferro, Joseph L. Riley III, Gregg H. Gilbert, Silvio Rocha Corrêa da Silva, F. L. Rosell, A. Valsecki Júnior, V. Gordan
{"title":"Evidence-practice gap in treatment decisions about defective composite and amalgam restorations among Brazilian dentists","authors":"E. P. S. Tagliaferro, Joseph L. Riley III, Gregg H. Gilbert, Silvio Rocha Corrêa da Silva, F. L. Rosell, A. Valsecki Júnior, V. Gordan","doi":"10.20396/bjos.v22i00.8671640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Better understanding of dentists’ decision-making about defective restorations is needed to close the evidence-practice gap (EPG). This study aimed to quantify the EPG about defective restorations and identify dentist factors associated with this EPG. Methods: 216 dentists from São Paulo State, Brazil, completed a questionnaire about three clinical case scenarios involving defective composite restorations with cementum-dentin margins (case 1) and enamel margins (case 2), and an amalgam (case 3) restoration. Dentists were asked what treatment, if any, they would recommend, including preventive treatment, polishing, re-surfacing, or repairing the restoration, or replacing the entire restoration. Replacing the entire restoration in any of these three scenarios was classified as inconsistent with the evidence, comprising an EPG. Bivariate analyses using Chi-square, ANOVA, or multiple comparison tests were performed (p<.05). Results: for defective composite restorations, 49% and 55% of dentists chose to replace the entire restoration for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of dentists chose to replace the entire amalgam restoration. Dentists were significantly more likely to choose to replace the defective amalgam restoration than the composite restoration with a defect at the cementum-dentin margins or the enamel margins (both at p < .001). Female dentists were more likely to choose a conservative treatment than male dentists for cases 1 (p=.034) and 2 (p=.009). Dentists with a higher percentage of patients interested in individualized caries prevention were also more conservative in case 1 (p=.045). Conclusion: a substantial EPG regarding treatment decisions for defective restorations exists, especially for composite restorations. This study adds to the international evidence that an EPG exists in this clinical area and that global strategies need to be developed to close the gap.","PeriodicalId":34984,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":"11 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v22i00.8671640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Better understanding of dentists’ decision-making about defective restorations is needed to close the evidence-practice gap (EPG). This study aimed to quantify the EPG about defective restorations and identify dentist factors associated with this EPG. Methods: 216 dentists from São Paulo State, Brazil, completed a questionnaire about three clinical case scenarios involving defective composite restorations with cementum-dentin margins (case 1) and enamel margins (case 2), and an amalgam (case 3) restoration. Dentists were asked what treatment, if any, they would recommend, including preventive treatment, polishing, re-surfacing, or repairing the restoration, or replacing the entire restoration. Replacing the entire restoration in any of these three scenarios was classified as inconsistent with the evidence, comprising an EPG. Bivariate analyses using Chi-square, ANOVA, or multiple comparison tests were performed (p<.05). Results: for defective composite restorations, 49% and 55% of dentists chose to replace the entire restoration for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Twenty-nine percent of dentists chose to replace the entire amalgam restoration. Dentists were significantly more likely to choose to replace the defective amalgam restoration than the composite restoration with a defect at the cementum-dentin margins or the enamel margins (both at p < .001). Female dentists were more likely to choose a conservative treatment than male dentists for cases 1 (p=.034) and 2 (p=.009). Dentists with a higher percentage of patients interested in individualized caries prevention were also more conservative in case 1 (p=.045). Conclusion: a substantial EPG regarding treatment decisions for defective restorations exists, especially for composite restorations. This study adds to the international evidence that an EPG exists in this clinical area and that global strategies need to be developed to close the gap.
巴西牙医对缺陷复合材料和汞合金修复体的治疗决策中存在的证据与实践差距
需要更好地了解牙医对有缺陷修复的决策,以缩小证据与实践的差距(EPG)。本研究旨在量化缺损修复体的EPG,并确定与EPG相关的牙医因素。方法:来自巴西圣保罗州的216名牙医完成了一份关于三种临床病例的问卷调查,包括牙骨质-牙釉质边缘(病例1)和牙釉质边缘(病例2)的缺陷复合修复体和汞合金(病例3)修复体。牙医被问及如果有的话,他们会推荐什么治疗方法,包括预防性治疗、抛光、重新表面处理、修复修复体或更换整个修复体。在这三种情况中的任何一种情况下更换整个修复都被归类为与证据不一致,包括EPG。采用卡方、方差分析或多重比较检验进行双变量分析(p< 0.05)。结果:对于有缺陷的复合修复体,病例1和病例2中分别有49%和55%的牙医选择替换整个修复体。29%的牙医选择替换整个汞合金修复体。牙医明显更倾向于选择替换有缺陷的汞合金修复比复合修复一个缺陷cementum-dentin利润率或搪瓷利润率(p <措施)。在病例1 (p= 0.034)和2 (p= 0.009)中,女性牙医比男性牙医更倾向于选择保守治疗。对个体化预防龋齿感兴趣的患者比例较高的牙医在病例1中也更保守(p= 0.045)。结论:对于缺损修复体,特别是复合修复体的治疗决策,存在大量的EPG。这项研究增加了国际证据,表明EPG在这一临床领域存在,需要制定全球战略来缩小差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences is an international non-profit journal, which publishes full-Length papers, original research reports, literature reviews, special reports, clinical cases, current topics and short communications, dealing with dentistry or related disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信