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 1,777 of 2,132 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.

Although often considered the most reliable diagnosis for a cracked tooth, pain on biting is not the most common symptom of a tooth with a visible crack, but rather pain to cold.

ABSTRACT. Background and aims:The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between individual salivary components, dental caries and age, utilizing (Aging Clin Exp Res 2008; 20: 503-508)

Background Medical professionals have access to a broad range of resources to address clinical information needs. While much attention is given to new sources of data such as those available on the internet, it is less clear how clinicians choose between peer-reviewed research literature and other publication-based sources. This analysis distinguishes between possible drivers of publication type preference (namely, practice setting, advanced training, professional development experiences). Dentists enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) are the population for this study. Theories of human and intellectual capital and institutional logics theory are used to understand how advanced training and other clinical experiences may explain the choices that dentists make when faced with clinical questions. Methods An online questionnaire was implemented with general dentists in the US National Dental PBRN. A series of logistic and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were used to explain the use of peer-reviewed and other publications. Measures of knowledge-based human capital distinctions (advanced clinical training and research engagement, advanced professional status, personal motivation for professional advancement) were used to explain preferences for research literature as a clinical resource. Results General dentists with advanced training, as well as those with a skill advancement motivation, show a preference for peer-reviewed materials. General dentists who have been practicing longer tend to favor other dental publications, preferring those sources as a resource when faced with clinical challenges. Human capital and professional motivation distinguish the information preferences among general dentists. Further, these factors explain more variance in use of peer-reviewed materials than practice setting does. Few differences by demographic groups were evident. Conclusions Results point to a distinct variation in the general dentistry professional community. Advanced training among general dentists, as well as the types of procedures typically conducted in their practice, distinguishes their information preferences from other general dentists, including those with more years of clinical experience.

Purpose: This study examines practitioner participation over 12 years in National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) studies and practitioner meetings, average length of participation, and association between practitioner- and practice-level characteristics and participation. Little information exists about practitioners’ long-term participation in PBRNs. Methods: The network conducted a retrospective analysis of practitioner participation in three main network activities during 2005–2017. Practitioners who completed an enrollment questionnaire, practiced in the U.S., and either attended a network meeting or received an invitation to complete a questionnaire or clinical study were included in the analysis. 3,669 practitioners met inclusion criteria. The network implemented 38 studies (28 clinical and 10 questionnaire), 23 of which (15 clinical and 8 questionnaire) met the criteria for the current analysis. Results: Overall, 86% (N=3,148) participated in at least one network activity during 2005–2017. Questionnaire studies had the highest rate with 81% (N=2,963) completing at least one, 21% (N=762) completed at least 1 clinical study and 19% (N=700) attended at least one network meeting. Among 1,578 practitioners enrolled in the first five years of the Network launch, 20% (N=320) participated in multiple network activities over 5–9 years, and 14% (N= 238) for 10–12 years. Practitioner characteristics associated with participation varied depending on the activity assessed. Conclusion: The network engaged practitioners in its research activities with relatively high participation rates over a 12-year period. Strategies employed by the network to engage practitioners may serve as a model for PBRN networks for other allied health professions.