Affiliation:
1. Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brasil
2. University of Florida, EUA
3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, EUA
Abstract
ABSTRACT Little is known about how Brazilian dentists’ treatment decisions for proximal carious lesions are compared to current evidence-based recommendations, so better understanding is needed to close any potential evidence-practice gap. Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the evidence-practice gap about proximal carious lesions treatment and identify dentist factors associated with this evidence-practice gap. Methods: Brazilian dentists (n=214) from Araraquara, São Paulo State, “completed a questionnaire about their dentist and practice characteristics and a translated version of the “Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment” from the U.S. National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Five radiographic images of proximal carious lesions in low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios were used. Associations between treatment recommendations and lesion, dentist, and practice characteristics were tested for statistical significance (p<0.05). Results: Lesions confined to the enamel would be restored by 35% and 71% of dentists in the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios, respectively, suggesting a substantial evidence-practice gap given that surgical intervention of enamel lesions is not consistent with current evidence. The lesion depth threshold to recommend a permanent restoration differed between the low-risk and high-risk patient scenarios (p<0.001). Specific dentist/practice characteristics (dentist gender, graduate of a public dental school, postgraduate training, use of caries risk assessment) were significantly associated with the evidence-practice gap, but the magnitude of these differences was not major Conclusion: A substantial evidence-practice gap in treatment of proximal carious lesions was found for the sample overall, even when clinical scenarios presented low-risk patients. Global strategies are needed to close this substantial evidence-practice gap.