Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29138112›Full record

ArticleJournal of dentistry2018

Dentists' decision strategies for suspicious occlusal caries lesions in a National Dental PBRN study.

Sonia K Makhija, Michael E Robinson, James D Bader, Daniel A Shugars, Mark S Litaker, Hong R Im, D Brad Rindal, Daniel J Pihlstrom, Cyril Meyerowitz, Valeria V Gordan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Photonic Methods for the Assessment of Lesion Activity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sonia K MakhijaUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States. Electronic address: smakhija@uab.edu.
Michael E RobinsonUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
James D BaderUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Daniel A ShugarsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Mark S LitakerUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.
Hong R ImPrivate Practice, Austin, TX, United States.
D Brad RindalHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Daniel J PihlstromPermanente Dental Associates, Portland, OR, United States.
Cyril MeyerowitzUniversity of Rochester, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, Rochester, NY, United States.
Valeria V GordanUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Meredith K BuchbergUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States.
Gregg H GilbertUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.
National Dental PBRNCollaborative Group

Funding

The National Dental PBRNU19DE022516 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2012 to 2018
$66.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCase presentations (vignettes) were completed by dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network study "Decision Aids for the Management of Suspicious Occlusal Caries Lesions (SOCLs)". The objective was to determine dentists' decision strategies for SOCLs.

methods107 dentists viewed a series of 16 vignettes that represented all combinations of 4 clinical cues: color, luster, lesion roughness, and patient-level caries risk. Each vignette included a patient description and a photograph of a tooth presenting the 4 cues. Dentists were asked to decide the likelihood that a suspected lesion extended into dentin. A lens model analysis was used to examine how dentists use these cues in making their decisions.

results86% of dentists had a consistent pattern of cue use that defined their decision strategy. On average, 70% of the variance in their decisions was accounted for by their use of the 4 cues. However, there was considerable variability in the individual cues used by each dentist. The percentages of dentists who used the different cues consistently were: luster (58%), color (48%), roughness (36%), and risk (35%). 14% of dentists reliably used only color, 7% used only luster, 4% used only roughness, and 1% used only risk when making SOCL decisions.

conclusionsThe online vignette system suggests that clinical SOCL decision strategies are highly individualized and dentists do not use all cues available to them to make these decisions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Prior to this study, there has been little evidence about how dentists use these cues (either individually or in combination) when judging the extent of caries progression. Such knowledge would be valuable when designing interventions to help dentists maximize the likelihood of appropriate treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedColorDental CariesDental EnamelDental Restoration, PermanentDentistsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Dentists'Surface PropertiesSurveys and QuestionnairesCariesCuesDentinDiagnosisVignettes

Identifiers

PMID29138112
PMCPMC5803398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.