Patient and practitioner perspectives on tooth extractions without clinical justification.

IF 3.1 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of the American Dental Association Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.adaj.2024.09.016

Dyonne Liesbeth Maria Broers, Leander Dubois, Jan de Lange, Jos Victor Marie Welie, Wolter Gerrit Brands, Jan Joseph Mathieu Bruers, Ad de Jongh

{"title":"Patient and practitioner perspectives on tooth extractions without clinical justification.","authors":"Dyonne Liesbeth Maria Broers, Leander Dubois, Jan de Lange, Jos Victor Marie Welie, Wolter Gerrit Brands, Jan Joseph Mathieu Bruers, Ad de Jongh","doi":"10.1016/j.adaj.2024.09.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Nondental factors (ie, financial, psychological, or cultural considerations) can play a role in extraction requests. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patients' perspectives on extraction without a valid clinical indication align with those of practitioners.Methods: Dentists from 3 centers for special oral health care, oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from 3 hospitals in the Netherlands, and their patients participated in this prospective observational study. Patients 18 years and older who requested extraction of permanent teeth other than third molars were included. Patients, dentists, and OMFS completed questionnaires.Results: A total of 21 dentists and 20 OMFS participated in this study. Among 192 dental patients and 572 patients from OMFS, patients reported nondental reasons more often (7.1% of dental patients, 3.5% of OMFS patients) than professionals (1.6% of dentists, 1.7% of OMFS). Of all extraction requests, 96.4% were granted. Extraction was not performed if both practitioner and patient cited only nondental reasons.Conclusions: Although dentists and OMFS received few requests for extraction on purely nondental grounds, patients were more likely to report extractions driven solely by nondental factors than practitioners.Practical implications: The absence of extractions executed purely on nondental grounds is a reassuring finding, as it dovetails with the ethical principles that dental care professionals must adhere to.","PeriodicalId":17197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Dental Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Dental Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2024.09.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nondental factors (ie, financial, psychological, or cultural considerations) can play a role in extraction requests. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patients' perspectives on extraction without a valid clinical indication align with those of practitioners.

Methods: Dentists from 3 centers for special oral health care, oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from 3 hospitals in the Netherlands, and their patients participated in this prospective observational study. Patients 18 years and older who requested extraction of permanent teeth other than third molars were included. Patients, dentists, and OMFS completed questionnaires.

Results: A total of 21 dentists and 20 OMFS participated in this study. Among 192 dental patients and 572 patients from OMFS, patients reported nondental reasons more often (7.1% of dental patients, 3.5% of OMFS patients) than professionals (1.6% of dentists, 1.7% of OMFS). Of all extraction requests, 96.4% were granted. Extraction was not performed if both practitioner and patient cited only nondental reasons.

Conclusions: Although dentists and OMFS received few requests for extraction on purely nondental grounds, patients were more likely to report extractions driven solely by nondental factors than practitioners.

Practical implications: The absence of extractions executed purely on nondental grounds is a reassuring finding, as it dovetails with the ethical principles that dental care professionals must adhere to.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

病人和医生对无临床理由拔牙的看法。

背景：非牙科因素（即经济、心理或文化因素）可能在拔牙请求中起一定作用。本研究旨在调查患者对无有效临床指征拔牙的看法是否与医生一致：来自荷兰 3 家特殊口腔保健中心的牙科医生、3 家医院的口腔颌面外科医生（OMFS）及其患者参与了这项前瞻性观察研究。研究对象包括要求拔除第三磨牙以外的恒牙的 18 岁及以上患者。患者、牙医和OMFS填写了调查问卷：共有 21 名牙医和 20 名 OMFS 参与了这项研究。在 192 名牙科患者和 572 名 OMFS 患者中，患者报告的非牙科原因（牙科患者 7.1%，OMFS 患者 3.5%）多于专业人士（牙医 1.6%，OMFS 1.7%）。在所有拔牙请求中，96.4% 的请求得到了批准。如果医生和患者都只提出非牙科原因，则不会实施拔牙：尽管牙医和OMFS收到的纯粹非牙科原因的拔牙请求很少，但患者比医生更有可能报告仅由非牙科因素导致的拔牙：没有纯粹出于非牙科原因的拔牙是一个令人欣慰的发现，因为这符合牙科护理专业人员必须遵守的道德原则。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of the American Dental Association 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

10.30%

发文量

221

审稿时长

34 days

期刊介绍： There is not a single source or solution to help dentists in their quest for lifelong learning, improving dental practice, and dental well-being. JADA+, along with The Journal of the American Dental Association, is striving to do just that, bringing together practical content covering dentistry topics and procedures to help dentists—both general dentists and specialists—provide better patient care and improve oral health and well-being. This is a work in progress; as we add more content, covering more topics of interest, it will continue to expand, becoming an ever-more essential source of oral health knowledge.

期刊最新文献

Politics, payors, patients, and practitioners. Adult mental health impairment and oral health care use in the United States, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2017-2021. Authors' Response. Dental Benefits. Oral manifestations of Crohn disease managed with ustekinumab: A case report.