Comparing Military and Civilian Dentists' Treatment Planning Decisions: A Pilot Study.

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical decision-making varies among dentists. However, the literature is limited and narrow in scope regarding the variation between public and private sector dentists. Because both types of dentists' decisions can directly influence military dental readiness, it is important to understand the potential differences in diagnosis, treatment planning, and the delivery of care. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare treatment planning recommendations between civilian and military providers.

Materials and methods: Patient-level data from the 2018 Recruit Surveillance, a stratified, cross-sectional study of 1,208 randomly selected U.S. Air Force recruits, were used to evaluate treatment planning outcomes for the 2 provider groups (2 civilians; seven military providers). Treatment planning outcomes included type of noninvasive, operative, and oral surgery treatment recommended, temporomandibular disorder referrals, and orthodontic referrals. Patient demographic variables included age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, and military component ("status"). Data were examined both at the tooth level and patient level for statistical significance. Multivariate analyses were performed with statistically significant variables included in each final model for patient-level data. Data were analyzed with logistic regression and Poisson regression (alpha = 0.05). Bivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for tooth-level data.

Results: Significant differences were found between military and civilian dentists' treatment planning decisions (P < .05) for both patient-level and tooth-level data. Adjusted for significant bivariate predictors of patient demographics at the patient level, civilian dentists were more likely to refer patients for orthodontic treatment, prescribe remineralization for sound tooth surfaces, incipient caries, and carious teeth, and prescribe direct restorations for teeth with 3 to 5 carious surfaces instead of single crowns compared to military dentists. Additionally, civilian dentists were less likely to prescribe sealants for sound tooth surfaces or carious teeth. No statistically significant difference in treatment planning outcomes was observed between civilian and military dentists for sealants for incipient caries, single crowns, or extraction of third molars. At the tooth level, civilian dentists were more likely to prescribe remineralization for sound tooth surfaces, remineralization instead of sealants for carious surfaces, and extraction of third molars. No statistically significant differences were noted between civilian and military providers for recommending sealant or remineralization for teeth with incipient caries or prescribing a single crown versus placing a direct restoration on posterior teeth with 3 to 5 carious surfaces.

Conclusions: Significant differences in treatment planning outcomes between civilian and military providers exist. Civilian providers are more likely to refer patients for orthodontic treatment and prescribe remineralization, direct restorations instead of single crowns, and third molar extractions, while military providers are more likely to prescribe sealants for sound tooth surfaces or carious teeth. Therefore, comparisons of treatment planning outcomes between civilian and military providers warrant further research.