Periodontal Services Rendered by General Practitioners

Characteristics of dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

OBJECTIVES

Our aims are to describe the characteristics of dentists, members of the US National Dental practice-based research network (PBRN) in the United States, and determine how often these dentists provide specific dental procedures.

METHODS

Dentists completed a questionnaire when they enrolled in the Network about their demographic and training characteristics and characteristics of their practices and patients. Dentists also reported the frequency of providing specific dental procedures. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 dentists in active clinical practice, 34% identified as females, 70% as white, and 73% as general dentists. Most dentists practiced in large metropolitan areas (87%) and in solo or small practices (72%). On average, they reported about one-half of their patients were children or older adults, a third were from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and one-quarter were covered by public insurance. Most dentists routinely performed restorations and fixed prosthetics (78%), extractions (59%), removable (44%) and implant (40%) prosthetics, and endodontics on incisor and premolar teeth (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists participating in the National Dental PBRN have much in common with dentists at large. The network has a broad representation of dentists, practice types, patient populations, and treatments offered, including diversity regarding race/ethnicity, gender, insurance, and geography of its practitioners and patients.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Characteristics of National Dental PBRN dentists suggest that a broad range of dentists is interested in participating in national-level research studies, thereby enabling an array of clinical study settings and topics that can optimize the generalizability of study findings.

Periodontal diagnosis, treatment, and referral patterns of general dental practitioners

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnosis, treatment, and referral patterns of periodontal patients by general dental practitioners (GDP).

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to registered GDP with publicly-listed postal addresses in Tasmania, Australia. Information was collected on demographics, training and professional development, examination, diagnosis and referral patterns, and periodontal treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven (44.5%) questionnaires were completed. Over 85% always or usually screened for periodontal disease. On average, 0 to ≤7 patients were diagnosed with periodontal disease. GDP were always or usually confident in treating gingivitis (100%), mild (98.7%) and moderate periodontitis (73.7%), and rarely or never confident in treating severe (81.6%) and aggressive periodontitis (86.8%). Over 38% frequently referred to periodontists, 35.5% sometimes, 21.1% rarely, and 5.3% never. Clinical factors associated with referral were periodontal pocketing of ≥6 mm, tooth mobility, no improvement following treatment, and a complex medical history.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GDP performed periodontal screening and diagnosis. They were confident in treating gingivitis and mild-to-moderate periodontitis. Referral to a periodontist was associated with disease severity, tooth mobility, a complex medical history, or unsuccessful treatment.

Scaling and root planing vs. conservative surgery in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

A renewed interest in conservative surgical techniques has been fueled by new technology, changes in referral patterns to periodontists and a desire to achieve periodontal health in the least invasive, most cost-efficient manner possible. Trends suggest that an increasing amount of periodontal care is being provided in the offices of general dentists. If true, it is likely that patients receiving care in these offices will be offered simpler surgical treatment modalities that do not require an extensive armamentarium. The purpose of this article was to review the effectiveness of six relatively simple surgical techniques - gingivectomy, flap debridement, modified Widman flap, excisional new attachment procedure, modified excisional new attachment procedure and laser-assisted new attachment procedure - and to compare the results obtained using these procedures with the well-known clinical benefits of scaling and root planing. The intent was to determine whether the benefits of surgical procedures in the hands of most general dentists extend beyond those of conventional nonsurgical therapy.

Periodontal diagnosis in private dental practice: a case-based survey

BACKGROUND

Despite the prevalence of periodontitis in Australia, there are few reports regarding periodontal diagnosis and therapies in the general dental practice setting. This study aimed to assess the degree of diagnostic accuracy in periodontal cases of Victorian general dental practitioners.

METHODS

Following ethics approval, dentists were invited to complete a scenario-based questionnaire on the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (ADAVB) website. Five text-based clinical scenarios (from a total of 10) were randomly presented, representing patients with a range of disease levels from periodontal health/gingivitis to severe periodontitis, and respondents were asked what examinations they would usually perform. Based upon the presented results of periodontal and radiographic examinations, a periodontal diagnosis was requested.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five dentists attempted the survey. Most were in group practice and based in Melbourne; 22.5% of respondents worked in a practice employing a hygienist. The clinical parameters most commonly measured to diagnose periodontal disease were pocket depth and mobility. The majority of respondents diagnosed health, gingivitis and mild periodontitis correctly compared to American Academy of Periodontology guidelines. However, moderate periodontitis tended to be diagnosed as severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists in Victoria used appropriate clinical parameters when assessing periodontal disease and were generally accurate in their diagnoses. There is a need for consensus regarding diagnostic definitions.

Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings

Background

Objectives were to: (1) determine whether and how often general dentists (GDs) provide specific dental procedures; and (2) test the hypothesis that provision is associated with key dentist, practice, and patient characteristics.

Methods

GDs (n = 2,367) in the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed an Enrollment Questionnaire that included: (1) dentist; (2) practice; and (3) patient characteristics, and how commonly they provide each of 10 dental procedures. We determined how commonly procedures were provided and tested the hypothesis that provision was substantively related to the three sets of characteristics.

Results

Two procedure categories were classified as “uncommon” (orthodontics, periodontal surgery), three were “common” (molar endodontics; implants; non-surgical periodontics), and five were “very common” (restorative; esthetic procedures; extractions; removable prosthetics; non-molar endodontics). Dentist, practice, and patient characteristics were substantively related to procedure provision; several characteristics seemed to have pervasive effects, such as dentist gender, training after dental school, full-time/part-time status, private practice vs. institutional practice, presence of a specialist in the same practice, and insurance status of patients.

Conclusions

As a group, GDs provide a comprehensive range of procedures. However, provision by individual dentists is substantively related to certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. A large number and broad range of factors seem to influence which procedures GDs provide. This may have implications for how GDs respond to the ever-changing landscape of dental care utilization, patient population demography, scope of practice, delivery models and GDs’ evolving role in primary care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6831-15-11) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perceptions of soft tissue laser use in orthodontics

OBJECTIVES

To compare attitudes of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarding the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists during the course of orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analogous survey was developed to evaluate and compare the current opinions of a representative sample (n  =  538) of orthodontists (61.3%), periodontists (24.3%), and general dentists (14.3%) regarding orthodontists' use of soft tissue lasers.

RESULTS

The majority (84%) of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarded the use of a soft tissue laser by orthodontists as appropriate. When compared to orthodontists and general dentists, a lower percentage of periodontists indicated that soft tissue laser use by orthodontists was appropriate (P < .01). For each of the eight specific soft tissue laser procedures investigated, periodontists reported a significantly lower level of appropriateness than did orthodontists and general dentists (P < .01). Around 75% of the total sample believed that referral would not be affected by the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists differed in their opinions of the perceived appropriateness of soft tissue laser use by orthodontists, with periodontists reporting a lower level of appropriateness. Clinicians need to communicate effectively to ensure that orthodontic patients in need of adjunctive soft tissue surgery are treated to the accepted standard of care.

Factors influencing the periodontal referral process

BACKGROUND

General dental practitioners (GPs) assess the periodontal status of patients and make decisions to treat patients or refer them to a periodontist. There is little information available regarding this process. The purpose of this study is to identify significant factors that GPs consider important in selecting a particular periodontist. The findings were compared and contrasted with responses of periodontists to gain perspectives from both groups involved in the referral process.

METHODS

Data from an online cross-sectional survey of GPs (n = 533) and periodontists (n = 533) who practice in the southeastern region of the United States (from the databases of the American Dental Association and American Academy of Periodontology member directories) were obtained.

RESULTS

The specialist's clinical skill was identified as the most important factor influencing periodontal referrals by GPs, whereas periodontists identified a previous positive experience between a GP and periodontist as the most important factor. In a descending order of importance, the top three rating averages (rated out of five) by GPs were clinical skill (4.84), a previous positive experience between a GP and periodontist (4.57), and communication (4.52). The top three factors of periodontists were a previous positive experience between a GP and periodontist (4.66), communication (4.40), and the likelihood of a good patient and periodontist rapport (4.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The periodontist's clinical skill was chosen by GPs as the primary factor influencing the referral decisions of GPs. Periodontists perceived a previous positive experience between the GP and periodontist as the most influential factor. Further studies are required to gain more insight into the referral process.