PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to: 1) evaluate and compare the evidence-practice gap (EPG) in minimal intervention dentistry (MID) in Japan and Brazil by measuring concordance between dentists\' clinical practice and published evidence; and 2) identify dentists\' factors associated with the EPG in both countries.
METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using a web-delivered questionnaire among 136 Japanese and 110 Brazilian dentists. The questionnaire consisted of three questions concerning \"restoration diagnosis and treatment,\" \"deep caries diagnosis and treatment,\" and \"caries risk assessment\" regarding MID. A chi-square test was used to analyze differences in concordance among clinical practice and evidence from the literature between Japanese and Brazilian dentists. Logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze dentists\' factors associated with overall concordance for all three questions.
RESULTS: Overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil (55%) than in Japan (38%) (p<0.01). Concerning how evidence was obtained, textbooks, nonacademic journals, and seminars and workshops were used as information sources more frequently by Japanese than Brazilian dentists (p<0.001), whereas scientific journal articles in English were used more frequently by Brazilian dentists (p<0.001). On logistic regression analysis, overall concordance was higher for Japanese dentists who frequently obtained evidence from scientific journal articles in English (p<0.05), whereas Brazilian dentists who frequently obtained evidence from the Internet were associated with lower overall concordance (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Because overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil than in Japan, Japan may have a greater EPG in MID practice. Specific characteristics of Japanese and Brazilian dentists showed significant associations with overall concordance.
METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using a web-delivered questionnaire among 136 Japanese and 110 Brazilian dentists. The questionnaire consisted of three questions concerning \"restoration diagnosis and treatment,\" \"deep caries diagnosis and treatment,\" and \"caries risk assessment\" regarding MID. A chi-square test was used to analyze differences in concordance among clinical practice and evidence from the literature between Japanese and Brazilian dentists. Logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze dentists\' factors associated with overall concordance for all three questions.
RESULTS: Overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil (55%) than in Japan (38%) (p<0.01). Concerning how evidence was obtained, textbooks, nonacademic journals, and seminars and workshops were used as information sources more frequently by Japanese than Brazilian dentists (p<0.001), whereas scientific journal articles in English were used more frequently by Brazilian dentists (p<0.001). On logistic regression analysis, overall concordance was higher for Japanese dentists who frequently obtained evidence from scientific journal articles in English (p<0.05), whereas Brazilian dentists who frequently obtained evidence from the Internet were associated with lower overall concordance (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Because overall concordance was significantly higher in Brazil than in Japan, Japan may have a greater EPG in MID practice. Specific characteristics of Japanese and Brazilian dentists showed significant associations with overall concordance.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在：1）通过测量牙医临床实践和已发表证据之间的一致性，评估和比较日本和巴西最小干预牙科（MID）的证据-实践差距（EPG）；2）确定两个国家与EPG相关的牙医因素。
方法：我们使用网络提供的问卷对136名日本和110名巴西牙医进行了横断面研究。问卷由三个问题组成，涉及“恢复诊断和治疗，\"\"深龋诊断和治疗，关于MID的\"和\"龋齿风险评估\"。使用卡方检验来分析日本和巴西牙医之间的临床实践和文献证据之间的一致性差异。进行了Logistic回归分析，以分析与所有三个问题的总体一致性相关的牙医因素。
结果：巴西的总体一致性（55％）明显高于日本（38％）（p<0.01）。关于证据是如何获得的，教科书,非学术期刊,与巴西牙医相比，日本人更频繁地将研讨会和讲习班用作信息来源（p<0.001），而巴西牙医更经常使用英文的科学期刊文章(p<0.001)。在逻辑回归分析中，对于经常从英文科学期刊文章中获得证据的日本牙医，总体一致性较高（p<0.05），而经常从互联网上获得证据的巴西牙医与较低的总体一致性相关（p<0.05）。
结论：由于巴西的总体一致性明显高于日本，日本在MID实践中可能有更大的EPG。日本和巴西牙医的特定特征显示出与总体一致性的显着关联。
方法：我们使用网络提供的问卷对136名日本和110名巴西牙医进行了横断面研究。问卷由三个问题组成，涉及“恢复诊断和治疗，\"\"深龋诊断和治疗，关于MID的\"和\"龋齿风险评估\"。使用卡方检验来分析日本和巴西牙医之间的临床实践和文献证据之间的一致性差异。进行了Logistic回归分析，以分析与所有三个问题的总体一致性相关的牙医因素。
结果：巴西的总体一致性（55％）明显高于日本（38％）（p<0.01）。关于证据是如何获得的，教科书,非学术期刊,与巴西牙医相比，日本人更频繁地将研讨会和讲习班用作信息来源（p<0.001），而巴西牙医更经常使用英文的科学期刊文章(p<0.001)。在逻辑回归分析中，对于经常从英文科学期刊文章中获得证据的日本牙医，总体一致性较高（p<0.05），而经常从互联网上获得证据的巴西牙医与较低的总体一致性相关（p<0.05）。
结论：由于巴西的总体一致性明显高于日本，日本在MID实践中可能有更大的EPG。日本和巴西牙医的特定特征显示出与总体一致性的显着关联。
