Oral Health Prev Dent 8 (2010), No. 4 17. Dec. 2010
Oral Health Prev Dent 8 (2010), No. 4 (17.12.2010)
Page 351-359, doi:10.3290/j.ohpd.a19970, PubMed:21180672
Use of Caries-Preventive Agents in Children: Findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network
Riley, J.L. / Richman, Joshua S. / Rindal, D. Brad / Fellows, Jeffrey L. / Qvist, Vibeke / Gilbert, Gregg H. / Gordan, Valeria V. for the Dental PBRN Collaborative Group
Purpose: Scientific evidence supports the application of caries-preventive agents in children and adolescents, and this knowledge must be applied to the practice of dentistry. There are few multi-region data that allow for comparisons of practice patterns between types of dental practices and geographical regions. The objective of the present study was to characterise the use of specific caries-preventive agents for paediatric patients in a large multi-region sample of practising clinicians.
Methods: The present study surveyed clinicians from the Dental Practice-based Research Network who perform restorative dentistry in their practices. The survey consisted of a questionnaire that presented a range of questions about caries risk assessment and the use of preventive techniques in children aged 6 to 18 years.
Results: Dental sealants (69%) or in-office fluoride (82%) were the most commonly used caries-preventive agents of the cariespreventive regimens. The recommendation of at-homecaries-preventive agents ranged from36%to7%,with themost commonly usedagent being non-prescription fluoriderinse. Clinicianswho practised in a large grouppracticemodel andclinicianswho come from the Scandinavian region use caries risk assessment more frequently compared to clinicians who come from regions that had, predominantly, clinicians in private practice. Whether or not clinicians used caries risk assessment with their paediatric patients was poorly correlated with the likelihood of actually using caries-preventive treatments on patients.
Conclusions: Although clinicians reported the use of some form of in-office caries-preventive agent, there was considerable variabilityacross practices. These differences could represent a lack of consensus across practising clinicians about thebenefits of caries-preventive agents, or a function of differing financial incentives, or patient poolswith differing levels of overall caries risk.
Keywords: caries, chewing gum, chlorhexidine, dental sealant, fluoride