Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted to describe the benefits of and challenges to practitioner participation in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network, a dental practice-based research network (PBRN). The results were compared with results from medical PBRNs across different tiers of participation (based on practitioner-investigators previous involvement with PEARL research protocols). METHODS: A 39-item web-based survey addressed the benefits of PBRN participation on three levels: individual/practitioner, practice (office), and community/professional. Participants were also asked to rate challenges to participation. RESULTS: A total of 153 of 216 PEARL practitioner-investigators participated, a response rate of 71%. The majority (70%) was male, with a median of 23 years in private practice. 'Means to stay informed of new developments in my profession' was considered a 'very important' benefit for nearly three-quarters of the sample (71%). 'Opportunity to improve clinical procedures' was considered as 'very important' by 73% of respondents. In terms of benefits related to the community and profession, 65% of respondents reported 'means to directly contribute to the evidence base of dental practice' as being 'very important'. 'Disruption in practice routine/clinical practice' was considered the most important challenge to participation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of and challenges to participation identified did not differ across tiers of participation and were similar to benefits identified by participants in medical PBRNs. The results of this study will help facilitate the design of future PBRN protocols to encourage greater participation by the profession. Results suggest that practitioners with similar interests could be recruited to collaborative studies between medicine and dentistry.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Practitioner-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. RESULTS: P-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). CONCLUSIONS: These 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 IMPLICATIONS: These results contribute to the clinical evidence base to help guide practitioners when planning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.

BACKGROUND: The authors undertook a study involving members of a dental practice-based research network to determine the outcome and factors associated with success and failure of endodontic therapy. METHODS: Members in participating practices (practitioner-investigators [P-Is]) invited the enrollment of all patients seeking treatment in the practice who had undergone primary endodontic therapy and restoration in a permanent tooth three to five years previously. If a patient had more than one tooth so treated, the P-I selected as the index tooth the tooth treated earliest during the three- to five-year period. The authors excluded from the study any teeth that served as abutments for removable partial dentures or overdentures, third molars and teeth undergoing active orthodontic endodontic therapy. The primary outcome was retention of the index tooth. Secondary outcomes, in addition to extraction, that defined failure included clinical or radiographic evidence (or both) of periapical pathosis, endodontic retreatment or pain on percussion. RESULTS: P-Is in 64 network practices enrolled 1,312 patients with a mean (standard deviation) time to follow-up of 3.9 (0.6) years. During that period, 3.3 percent of the index teeth were extracted, 2.2 percent underwent retreatment, 3.6 percent had pain on percussion and 10.6 percent had periapical radiolucencies for a combined failure rate of 19.1 percent. The presence of preoperative periapical radiolucency with a diagnosis of either irreversible pulpitis or necrotic pulp was associated with failure after multivariate analysis, as were multiple canals, male sex and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that failure rates for endodontic therapy are higher than previously reported in general practices, according to results of studies based on dental insurance claims data. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study can help guide the practitioner in deciding the most appropriate course of therapy for teeth with irreversible pulpitis, necrotic pulp or periapical periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Members of the practice-based research network Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network investigated the dentin caries activity in early occlusal lesions and its relationship to patient age, preoperative tooth sensitivity and radiographic appearance, as well as its influence on preparation depth and volume. METHODS: PEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 45), general dentists who were trained but whose methods were not calibrated, conducted a study regarding postoperative hypersensitivity in resin-based composite restorations. The P-Is enrolled as study participants 613 patients with occlusal carious lesions that, in the P-Is' clinical judgment, required restoration. The P-Is used baseline radiographs to assess the depth and extent of the lesions. Data for 671 restorations included baseline sensitivity; ranking of dentin caries activity on the opening of the enamel; radiographic visibility (n = 652); and measurements of preparation depth, width and length. RESULTS: P-Is found rapidly progressing dentin caries in 38.5 percent (258 of 671) of lesions and slowly progressing (and potentially inactive dentin) caries in the remainder of the lesions. Rapidly progressing caries was not related to the participant's age or participant-reported preoperative hypersensitivity but was related to the lesion depth as seen radiographically (P < .001) and depth (P < .001) and volume (P < .001) of the preparation. Molars had slightly higher but not statistically significant levels of caries activity. CONCLUSION: Rapidly progressing dentin caries, while present in only 38.5 percent of lesions, was related to the lesion's radiographic appearance but not to the participant's age or the study tooth's pre-operative sensitivity. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of the low level of rapidly progressing dentin caries in this study population and the fact that slowly progressing caries can be inactive or remineralizing, the authors advise sealing versus operative treatment of early or shallow occlusal lesions.