A National Dental Practice-Based Research Network phase II, cluster-randomized clinical trial assessing nicotine replacement therapy sampling in dental settings: study protocol for the Free Samples for Health (FreSH) study.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking has major detrimental effects on oral health. Tobacco interventions in dental settings are effective, but rarely delivered. The American Dental Hygienists Association recommends that oral health providers: Ask patients about tobacco use, Advise quitting tobacco use, and Refer to state quitlines (Ask-Advise-Refer; AAR). While AAR connects patients to counseling, it does not directly connect patients to medication. Nicotine replacement therapy sampling (NRTS) is an empirically supported intervention to provide starter packs of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to people who smoke. NRTS combined with AAR could be an effective tobacco treatment intervention for dental settings. METHODS: This manuscript describes the study protocol for the Free Samples for Health (FreSH) study, a group randomized clinical trial testing the effectiveness of NRTS + AAR vs. AAR alone on long-term smoking abstinence. Fifty dental practices in the Midwest and Northeast nodes of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network are randomly assigned to provide AAR and either a 2-week supply of 14-mg nicotine patches and 4-mg nicotine lozenges (NRTS condition) or an electric toothbrush (ET condition). Approximately 1,200 patients who currently smoke-regardless of interest in quitting- are recruited during dental visits. Participants complete a baseline survey in-person, then after visit, 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up surveys remotely. The primary outcome is carbon monoxide-confirmed 7-day point prevalence abstinence from combustible tobacco measured at 6 months post-enrollment. Secondary outcomes include: 24-h intentional quit attempts, change in cigarettes smoked per day, NRT utilization, attitudes toward NRT, intention to use NRT, and intention to quit smoking. A key informant process evaluation and cost effectiveness analysis will provide information for future implementation of NRTS. DISCUSSION: This is the first clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of NRTS on promoting smoking cessation in dental settings. If effective, this treatment could be implemented to increase the provision of smoking cessation interventions in dental settings to provide an additional treatment access point for people who smoke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClincalTrials.gov (NCT05627596) on 11/25/2022.

Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which preparation techniques clinicians use in routine clinical practice for single-unit crown restorations; (2) test whether certain practice, dentist, and patient characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in a questionnaire regarding preparation techniques, dental equipment used for single-unit crown preparations, scheduled chair time, occlusal clearance determination, location of finish lines, magnification during preparation, supplemental lighting, shade selection, use of intraoral photographs, and trimming dies. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 2132 eligible dentists, 1777 (83%) responded to the survey. The top two margin configuration choices for single-unit crown preparation for posterior crowns were chamfer/heavy chamfer (65%) and shoulder (23%). For anterior crowns, the most prevalent choices were the chamfer (54%) and the shoulder (37%) configurations. Regarding shade selection, a combination of dentist, assistant, and patient input was used to select anterior shades 59% of the time. Photographs are used to communicate shade selection with the laboratory in about half of esthetically demanding cases. The ideal finish line was located at the crest of gingival tissue for 49% of respondents; 29% preferred 1 mm below the crest; and 22% preferred the finish line above the crest of tissue. Average chair time scheduled for a crown preparation appointment was 76 ± 21 minutes. Practice and dentist characteristics were significantly associated with margin choice including practice type (p < 0.001), region (p < 0.001), and years since graduation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Network dentists prefer chamfer/heavy chamfer margin designs, followed by shoulder preparations. These choices were related to practice and dentist characteristics.

Impression Techniques Used for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: To: (1) determine which impression and gingival displacement techniques practitioners use for single-unit crowns on natural teeth; and (2) test whether certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with the use of these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists participating in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible for this survey study. The study used a questionnaire developed by clinicians, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and survey experts. The questionnaire was pretested via cognitive interviewing with a regionally diverse group of practitioners. The survey included questions regarding gingival displacement and impression techniques. Survey responses were compared by dentist and practice characteristics using ANOVA. RESULTS: The response rate was 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists (83%). Regarding gingival displacement, most clinicians reported using either a single cord (35%) or dual cord (35%) technique. About 16% of respondents preferred an injectable retraction technique. For making impressions, the most frequently used techniques and materials are: poly(vinyl siloxane), 77%; polyether, 12%; optical/digital, 9%. A dental auxiliary or assistant made the final impression 2% of the time. Regarding dual-arch impression trays, 23% of practitioners report they typically use a metal frame tray, 60% use a plastic frame, and 16% do not use a dual-arch tray. Clinicians using optical impression techniques were more likely to be private practice owners or associates. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents current techniques for gingival displacement and making impressions for crowns. Certain dentist and practice characteristics are significantly associated with these techniques.

Dentist material selection for single-unit crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed a study questionnaire about techniques and materials used for single-unit crowns and an enrollment questionnaire about dentist/practice characteristics. The objectives were to quantify dentists' material recommendations and test the hypothesis that dentist's and practice's characteristics are significantly associated with these recommendations. METHODS: Surveyed dentists responded to a contextual scenario asking what material they would use for a single-unit crown on an anterior and posterior tooth. Material choices included: full metal, porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), all-zirconia, layered zirconia, lithium disilicate, leucite-reinforced ceramic, or other. RESULTS: 1777 of 2132 eligible dentists responded (83%). The top 3 choices for anterior crowns were lithium disilicate (54%), layered zirconia (17%), and leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (13%). There were significant differences (p<0.05) by dentist's gender, race, years since graduation, practice type, region, practice busyness, hours worked/week, and location type. The top 3 choices for posterior crowns were all-zirconia (32%), PFM (31%), and lithium disilicate (21%). There were significant differences (p<0.05) by dentist's gender, practice type, region, practice busyness, insurance coverage, hours worked/week, and location type. CONCLUSIONS: Network dentists use a broad range of materials for single-unit crowns for anterior and posterior teeth, adopting newer materials into their practices as they become available. Material choices are significantly associated with dentist's and practice's characteristics. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Decisions for crown material may be influenced by factors unrelated to tooth and patient variables. Dentists should be cognizant of this when developing an evidence-based approach to selecting crown material.

Treatment recommendations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to quantify practitioner variation in likelihood to recommend a crown and test whether certain dentist, practice, and clinical factors are associated significantly with this likelihood. METHODS: Dentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed a questionnaire about indications for single-unit crowns. In 4 clinical scenarios, practitioners ranked their likelihood of recommending a single-unit crown. The authors used these responses to calculate a dentist-specific crown factor (range, 0-12). A higher score implied a higher likelihood of recommending a crown. The authors tested certain characteristics for statistically significant associations with the crown factor. RESULTS: A total of 1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists (83%) responded. Practitioners were most likely to recommend crowns for teeth that were fractured, cracked, or endodontically treated or had a broken restoration. Practitioners overwhelmingly recommended crowns for posterior teeth treated endodontically (94%). Practice owners, practitioners in the Southwest, and practitioners with a balanced workload were more likely to recommend crowns, as were practitioners who used optical scanners for digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the likelihood of recommending a crown. Although consensus exists in some areas (posterior endodontic treatment), variation dominates in others (size of an existing restoration). Recommendations varied according to type of practice, network region, practice busyness, patient insurance status, and use of optical scanners. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations for crowns may be influenced by factors unrelated to tooth and patient variables. A concern for tooth fracture-whether from endodontic treatment, fractured teeth, or large restorations-prompted many clinicians to recommend crowns.