Search

Treatment of dentin hypersensitivity with oxalates is common, but oxalate efficacy remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review clinical trials reporting an oxalate treatment compared with no treatment or placebo with a dentin hypersensitivity outcome. Risk-of-bias assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated by random-effects meta-analysis. Of 677 unique citations, 12 studies with high risk-of-bias were included. The summary SMD for 3% monohydrogen-monopotassium oxalate (n = 8 studies) was -0.71 [95% Confidence Interval: -1.48, 0.06]. Other treatments, including 30% dipotassium oxalate (n = 1), 30% dipotassium oxalate plus 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 3), 6% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate (n = 1), 6.8% ferric oxalate (n = 1), and oxalate-containing resin (n = 1), also were not statistically significantly different from placebo treatments. With the possible exception of 3% monohydrogen monopotassium oxalate, available evidence currently does not support the recommendation of dentin hypersensitivity treatment with oxalates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This cross-sectional study by the Northwest PRECEDENT practitioners correlated the location of caries diagnosed in the past 12 months with treatment provided.Methods: An oral health survey was conducted on up to 20 patients per practice for 101 practises in the Northwest PRECEDENT network. A total of 1943 eligible patients were randomly assessed for the location of and treatment provided for caries lesions diagnosed within the past 12 months. Regression analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE) was performed to assess association of treatment to tooth location and surface characterization, adjusting for age, practice location (urban/rural), dentist gender, and experience level. The analysis accounts for clustering by practice using robust variance estimates.Results: Overall, 55.4% of patients exhibited recent caries and 42.8% received treatment for at least one permanent tooth. 18% of treated teeth were treated with amalgam, and 72% were treated with composite. This percentage varied as a function of tooth surface characteristics, patient characteristics, and dentist characteristics. The results suggest that restoration selection does depend on tooth type and which surfaces are being restored. The odds of a molar receiving an amalgam restoration are 2.44 (95% CI=1.81-3.30) times higher as compared to a bicuspid, adjusting for all other covariates. When the restoration includes the occlusal surface of a tooth the odds are 0.42 (95% CI=0.20-0.89) times as great that amalgam will be placed. When the restoration includes the mesial or distal surface of the tooth the odds for amalgam restoration are 2.49 (95% CI=1.25-4.95) times higher compared to when it does not include these surfaces.Conclusion: Restorative material choice varied based on caries location and practitioner gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patient salivary characteristics are being measured as part of the Northwest PRECEDENT (Practice-based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-based DENTistry) study on caries risk assessment. Prior to the implementation of these salivary diagnostic tests in a practice-based cohort study, inter-examiner reliability was assessed for resting salivary pH, stimulated salivary flow rate, pH and buffering capacity., Methods: An initial evaluation of inter-examiner reliability of the 4 salivary tests was conducted among 6 dental auxiliary examiners using a convenience sample of 40 dental students. An in complete block design was used to assign samples to examiners (3 examiners per sample and 20 samples per examiner). Inter-examiner reliability testing was conducted on a patient population representative of the practice-based network in 4 member practices. Two dental assistants per practice independently conducted the salivary tests on samples provided by a random selection of 20 to 25 patients. A separate analysis was performed for each study. For each test, an inter-examiner reliability index was computed., Results: Results from two studies are reported. In the first, stimulated salivary flow rate demonstrated excellent inter-examiner reliability, and resting salivary pH showed high inter-examiner reliability, while buffering capacity and stimulated salivary pH had moderate and very low inter-examiner reliability, respectively. In the second, inter-examiner reliability was excellent for the stimulated salivary flow rate and the resting salivary pH. The inter-examiner reliability for the stimulated salivary pH was also high and the stimulated salivary buffering capacity test had moderate reliability., Conclusion: The small variance in stimulated salivary pH and buffering capacity in dental students may have artificially made the reliability appear low in the first attempt at inter-examiner reliability testing. In the second study, all 4 tests had an accept able performance.

Practice-based research should be performed in all practice settings if the results are to be applied to all settings. However, some practice settings, such as community clinics, have unique features that may make the conduct of such research more challenging. The purpose of this article is to describe and compare the similarities and unique challenges related to conducting research in community clinics compared to private practices within the Northwest Practice-Based REsearch Collaborative in Evidence-Based DENTistry (PRECEDENT) network. Information was obtained from meetings with general dentists, a survey of general dentists (N = 253), and a clinical examination and record review of a systemic random sample of patients visiting community clinics and private practices. (N = 1903)-all part of a dental practice-based research network. The processes of conducting research, the dentist and patient sociodemographic characteristics, the prevalence of oral diseases, and the dental treatments received in community clinics and private practices were compared. Both community clinics and private practices have the clinical treatment of the patients as their priority and have time constraints on research. The processes of research training, obtaining informed consent, and collecting, transmitting, and securely maintaining research data are also similar. The patient populations and treatment needs differ substantially between community clinics and private practices, with a higher prevalence of dental caries and higher restorative treatment needs in the community clinic patients. The process of study participant selection and follow-up for research and the dentist and staff work arrangements also vary between the two practice settings. Although community clinic patients and their dental healthcare providers have different research needs and challenges than their counterparts in private practice, practice-based research can be successfully.