Relationship between epidemiologic coronal caries assessments and practitioners' treatment recommendations in adults.
Relationship between epidemiologic coronal caries assessments and practitioners' treatment recommendations in adults.
复制标题
成人流行病学冠状龋齿评估与执业医师治疗建议之间的关系。
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0528.1993.tb00729.x
复制
发表时间：
1993
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Rozier,RG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bader,JD;Shugars,DA;Rozier,RG
– 成人龋齿发病率的确定反映了牙医的治疗决定以及流行病学家的龋齿评估，因为许多患者在确定发病率所需的两次评估之间接受治疗。然而，人们对流行病学评估的龋齿与医生的治疗建议之间的关系知之甚少。在这项研究中，根据流行病学评估确定的龋齿状况对牙齿进行了比较，对建议治疗牙齿的医生比例以及这些建议的原因进行了比较。平均而言，对于经流行病学评估视为龋齿的牙齿，平均近 90% 的检查医生建议进行治疗。大多数（但不是全部）针对流行病学确定的龋齿的治疗建议都是出于与龋齿相关的原因。在通过流行病学评估分类为健康的牙齿中，牙医建议治疗的平均比例为 11%。对于修复后的非龋齿，平均 35% 的检查牙医建议进行治疗。在所有非龋齿中，25% 的治疗建议与龋齿有关。医生指出与龋齿相关的治疗建议所产生的平均患者 F 增量（新填充表面的数量）略小于总 F 增量的一半。因此，F 增量可能会大大高估龋齿发生率。
– Caries incidence determinations in adults reflect dentists' treatment decisions as well as epidemiologists' caries assessments because many patients receive treatment between the two assessments that are required to determine incidence. Yet knowledge of the relationship between epidemiologically assessed caries and practitioners' treatment recommendations is poor. In this study, the proportions of practitioners recommending treatment for a tooth, and the reasons for those recommendations, were compared across teeth grouped by their caries status as determined from an epidemiologic assessment. On average, for a tooth deemed carious by epidemiologic assessment, a mean of almost 90% of examining practitioners recommended treatment. Most but not all of these recommendations for treatment of teeth with epidemiologically determined caries were for caries‐related reasons. Among teeth classified as sound by epidemiological assessment, the mean proportion of dentists recommending treatment was 11%. For restored, non‐carious teeth a mean of 35% of examining dentists recommended treatment. Across all noncarious teeth, 25% of all treatment recommendations were related to caries. The mean patient F increment (number of newly filled surfaces) that would result from treatment recommendations practitioners indicated as being associated with caries was slightly less than one‐half of the total F increment. Thus, F increments may substantially overestimate caries incidence.