Heaven Tim J, Gordan Valeria V, Litaker Mark S, Fellows Jeffrey L, Brad Rindal D, Firestone Allen R, Gilbert Gregg H
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Restorative Sciences, 1919 7th Avenue South, AL 35294-0007, United States.
J Dent. 2013 Aug;41(8):718-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.014. Epub 2013 Jun 3.
The aim of this study was to quantify the agreement among individual National Dental Practice-Based Research Network dentists' self-reported treatment decisions for primary occlusal caries, primary proximal caries, and existing restorations.
Five hypothetical clinical scenarios were presented: primary occlusal caries; primary proximal caries; and whether three existing restorations should be repaired or replaced. We quantified the probability that dentists who recommended later restorative intervention for primary caries were the same ones who recommended that existing restorations be repaired instead of replaced.
Dentists who recommended later restorative treatment of primary occlusal caries and proximal caries at a more-advanced stage were significantly more likely to recommend repair instead of replacement. Agreement among dentists on a threshold stage for the treatment of primary caries ranged from 40 to 68%, while that for repair or replacement of existing restorations was 36 to 43%.
Dentists who recommended repair rather than replacement of existing restorations were significantly more likely to recommend later treatment of primary caries. Conversely, dentists who recommended treatment of primary caries at an earlier stage were significantly more likely to recommend replacement of the entire restoration. Between-dentist agreement for primary caries treatment was better than between-dentist agreement for repair or replacement of existing restorations.
These findings suggest consistency in how individual dentists approach the treatment of primary caries and existing restorations. However, substantial variation was found between dentists in their treatment decisions about the same teeth.
本研究旨在量化全国基于牙科实践的研究网络中个体牙医对原发性咬合面龋、原发性邻面龋和现有修复体的自我报告治疗决策之间的一致性。
呈现了五个假设的临床场景:原发性咬合面龋;原发性邻面龋;以及三个现有修复体是应修复还是替换。我们量化了那些建议对原发性龋进行后期修复干预的牙医与那些建议对现有修复体进行修复而非替换的牙医为同一人的概率。
那些建议对处于更晚期的原发性咬合面龋和邻面龋进行后期修复治疗的牙医,显著更有可能建议修复而非替换。牙医们对原发性龋治疗阈值阶段的一致性范围为40%至68%,而对现有修复体的修复或替换的一致性为36%至43%。
那些建议对现有修复体进行修复而非替换的牙医,显著更有可能建议对原发性龋进行后期治疗。相反,那些建议在早期对原发性龋进行治疗的牙医,显著更有可能建议替换整个修复体。牙医之间对原发性龋治疗的一致性优于对现有修复体的修复或替换的一致性。
这些发现表明个体牙医在处理原发性龋和现有修复体的治疗方法上具有一致性。然而,在对同一颗牙齿的治疗决策上,牙医之间存在很大差异。