确定直接修复失败率--病历审查与电子健康记录报告对比

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dentistry Journal Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.3390/dj12080250
Priyal Patel, Utsavi Kapadia, Janhvi Vyas, Sahil Mhay, R. Nalliah
{"title":"确定直接修复失败率--病历审查与电子健康记录报告对比","authors":"Priyal Patel, Utsavi Kapadia, Janhvi Vyas, Sahil Mhay, R. Nalliah","doi":"10.3390/dj12080250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amalgam and composite restorations are used to treat minor dental issues. University of Michigan, School of Dentistry Electronic Health Record (EHR) reports show a 2.31% failure rate for amalgam and 1.14% for composite. Our study aims to determine the true failure rates through manual EHR chart reviews. Patient data from the University of Michigan School of Dentistry were utilized—216 amalgam restorations from 2020 to 2022 and 350 composite restorations in 2021 were searched. We defined failure and retreatment as replacing a restoration with the same material and failure and alternate treatment as replacing restoration with an alternative treatment within one year. The failure rate refers to a combination of replacement with the same and alternative treatment material within one year. For Amalgam: 1.85% failed and were retreated; 7.87% failed and were received an alternate treatment. Composite: 9.71% failed and retreated; 2.86% failed and received alternate treatment. In total anterior composite: 10.5% retreated, 2.6% failed; posterior composite: 9.1% retreated, 3.0% failed. Our study revealed higher restoration failure rates than the reports extracted in the EHR. This highlights the need to foster a culture of precise documentation to align EHR reports with hand-search findings.","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determining the Failure Rate of Direct Restorations—Chart Review versus Electronic Health Record Reports\",\"authors\":\"Priyal Patel, Utsavi Kapadia, Janhvi Vyas, Sahil Mhay, R. Nalliah\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj12080250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Amalgam and composite restorations are used to treat minor dental issues. University of Michigan, School of Dentistry Electronic Health Record (EHR) reports show a 2.31% failure rate for amalgam and 1.14% for composite. Our study aims to determine the true failure rates through manual EHR chart reviews. Patient data from the University of Michigan School of Dentistry were utilized—216 amalgam restorations from 2020 to 2022 and 350 composite restorations in 2021 were searched. We defined failure and retreatment as replacing a restoration with the same material and failure and alternate treatment as replacing restoration with an alternative treatment within one year. The failure rate refers to a combination of replacement with the same and alternative treatment material within one year. For Amalgam: 1.85% failed and were retreated; 7.87% failed and were received an alternate treatment. Composite: 9.71% failed and retreated; 2.86% failed and received alternate treatment. In total anterior composite: 10.5% retreated, 2.6% failed; posterior composite: 9.1% retreated, 3.0% failed. Our study revealed higher restoration failure rates than the reports extracted in the EHR. This highlights the need to foster a culture of precise documentation to align EHR reports with hand-search findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12080250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

汞合金和复合树脂修复体用于治疗轻微的牙科问题。密歇根大学牙科学院的电子健康记录(EHR)报告显示,汞合金修复失败率为 2.31%,复合树脂修复失败率为 1.14%。我们的研究旨在通过手动查看电子病历来确定真实的失败率。我们利用了密歇根大学牙科学院的患者数据--2020 年至 2022 年的 216 例汞合金修复和 2021 年的 350 例复合树脂修复。我们将失败和再治疗定义为用相同的材料更换修复体,将失败和替代治疗定义为在一年内用替代治疗更换修复体。失败率指的是一年内更换相同和替代治疗材料的组合。汞合金:1.85%的失败者接受了修复;7.87%的失败者接受了替代治疗。复合材料:9.71%失败后重新处理;2.86%失败后接受替代治疗。前牙复合材料总计10.5%的人重新接受治疗,2.6%的人失败;后部复合材料:9.1%的人重新接受治疗,3.6%的人失败并接受了替代治疗:9.1%修复,3.0%失败。我们的研究显示修复失败率高于电子病历中提取的报告。这凸显了培养精确记录文化的必要性,以便使电子病历报告与手工搜索结果保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Determining the Failure Rate of Direct Restorations—Chart Review versus Electronic Health Record Reports
Amalgam and composite restorations are used to treat minor dental issues. University of Michigan, School of Dentistry Electronic Health Record (EHR) reports show a 2.31% failure rate for amalgam and 1.14% for composite. Our study aims to determine the true failure rates through manual EHR chart reviews. Patient data from the University of Michigan School of Dentistry were utilized—216 amalgam restorations from 2020 to 2022 and 350 composite restorations in 2021 were searched. We defined failure and retreatment as replacing a restoration with the same material and failure and alternate treatment as replacing restoration with an alternative treatment within one year. The failure rate refers to a combination of replacement with the same and alternative treatment material within one year. For Amalgam: 1.85% failed and were retreated; 7.87% failed and were received an alternate treatment. Composite: 9.71% failed and retreated; 2.86% failed and received alternate treatment. In total anterior composite: 10.5% retreated, 2.6% failed; posterior composite: 9.1% retreated, 3.0% failed. Our study revealed higher restoration failure rates than the reports extracted in the EHR. This highlights the need to foster a culture of precise documentation to align EHR reports with hand-search findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Asymmetric Dimethylarginine as a Potential Mediator in the Association between Periodontitis and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. Effect of a Novel Ergonomic Sheath on Dental Device-Related Muscle Work, Fatigue and Comfort-A Pilot Clinical Study. Evaluating Treatment Modalities for Reducing Recurrence in Central Giant Cell Granuloma: A Narrative Review. Influence of Direct Coronal Restoration Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars: An In Vitro Study. Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1