General practitioners' use of caries-preventive agents in adult patients versus pediatric patients: findings from the dental practice-based research network.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors tested the frequency of dentists' recommendations for and use of caries-preventive agents for children as compared with adults. METHODS: The authors surveyed 467 general dentists in the Dental Practice-Based Research Network who practice within the United States and treat both pediatric and adult patients. They asked dentists to identify the percentage of their patients for whom they had administered or recommended dental sealants, in-office and at-home fluoride, chlorhexidine rinse and xylitol gum. RESULTS: Dentists were less likely to provide adult patients than pediatric patients with in-office caries-preventive agents. However, the rate at which they recommended at-home preventive regimens for the two groups of patients was similar. Dentists with a conservative approach to caries treatment were the most likely to use and recommend the use of caries-preventive agents at similar rates in adults as in children. In addition, dentists in practices with a greater number of patients who had dental insurance were significantly more likely to provide in-office fluoride or sealants to adult patients than to pediatric patients. CONCLUSION: General dentists use in-office caries-preventive agents more commonly with their pediatric patients than with their adult patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: General dentists should consider providing additional in-office caries-preventive agents for their adult patients who are at increased risk of experiencing dental caries.

Reasons for placement of restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a study to identify and quantify the reasons used by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) for placing restorations on unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and the dental materials they used in doing so. METHODS: A total of 229 DPBRN practitioner-investigators provided data from their practices regarding 9,890 consecutive restorations in 5,810 patients. Information the practitioner-investigators provided included their reasons for restoring the teeth, the specific teeth and surfaces they restored and the restorative materials they used. RESULTS: Primary caries (85 percent of teeth, 8,351 of 9,890) and noncarious defects (15 percent, 1,479 of 9,890) were the main reasons participants gave for placing restorations. Participants placed restorations necessitated by caries most frequently on occlusal surfaces (49 percent, 4,091 of 8,351). They used amalgam for 47 percent of the molar restorations and 45 percent of the premolar restorations. They used directly placed resin-based composite (RBC) for 48 percent of the molar restorations, 50 percent of the premolar restorations and 93 percent of the anterior restorations. CONCLUSION: DPBRN practitioner-investigators cited dental caries on occlusal and proximal surfaces of molar teeth as the main reasons for placing restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces. RBC was the material they used most commonly for occlusal and anterior restorations. Amalgam remains the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries, although the authors noted significant differences in the use of amalgam and RBC by dentists in various regions of the DPBRN.