ArticleQuintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)2024
Diagnostic approach used by US general dental practitioners following discovery of oral lesions suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Article in Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral Cancer Numerical Index (OCNI): Development and Validation of a Cytology-Based Risk Assessment for Oral Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOral cancer examinations seek to clinically identify early oral cancers and discover premalignancies prior to their progression to invasive cancer. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and August 2017 to explore and quantify the diagnostic approach used by United States (US) general dental practitioners following discovery of an oral lesion suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy. US licensed general dental practitioners who were clinically active members of the US National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible to participate. Data for analysis were obtained via two questionnaires.
resultsThe majority of participants were males, practiced full-time, had a suburban primary practice, were born during the 1950s, and graduated dental school in the 1980s or 2000s. After identifying an oral lesion suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy, the next action of most general dental practitioner respondents (65.4%) was to refer the patient for consultation/biopsy. Most general dental practitioners (87.2%) referred to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon; 22% of general dental practitioners reported personally biopsying suspicious lesions. There was a relatively weak association between completing an Advanced Education in General Dentistry or General Practice Residency and subsequently personally performing biopsies on patients with oral lesions suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy (OR 1.33, P = .06). Most written referrals took place electronically and often included information, including lesion location (87.0%), lesion sign/symptoms (85.3%), lesion history (83.9%), radiographs (59.3%), medical history (50.6%), dental history (48.8%), and photographs (42.4%). When a referral biopsy was performed, referring clinicians were most frequently informed of the findings via a written report (96.7%, when positive for malignancy/premalignancy, and 95.4% when negative).
conclusionA snapshot is presented of current actions taken by US general dental practitioners following the discovery of oral abnormalities suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.