Recommended treatment of cracked teeth: Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Statement of problem: Despite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Material and methods: Network dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained. Results: A total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63%) were female, 2394 (85%) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77%) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86%) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46%) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98%), endodontics (n=29; 3%), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2%), extraction (n=2; 0.2%), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1%). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0). Conclusions: Approximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3% absolute difference (4% recommended treatment versus 1% recommended monitoring).

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Tooth
Research
Pain
Odds Ratio
Therapeutics
Dental Insurance
Endodontics
Dentists
Cluster Analysis
Education
Light
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Recommended treatment of cracked teeth : Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. / National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e0f2895faab8461b8b9f4b82161ac344,
title = "Recommended treatment of cracked teeth: Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network",
abstract = "Statement of problem: Despite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Material and methods: Network dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained. Results: A total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63{\%}) were female, 2394 (85{\%}) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77{\%}) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86{\%}) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46{\%}) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98{\%}), endodontics (n=29; 3{\%}), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2{\%}), extraction (n=2; 0.2{\%}), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1{\%}). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0). Conclusions: Approximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3{\%} absolute difference (4{\%} recommended treatment versus 1{\%} recommended monitoring).",
author = "{National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group} and Hilton, {Thomas (Tom)} and Ellen Funkhouser and Jack Ferracane and Michele Schultz-Robins and Gordan, {Valeria V.} and Bramblett, {Bobby J.} and Snead, {R. Mack} and Walter Manning and Remakel, {Jeffrey R.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommended treatment of cracked teeth

T2 - Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

AU - National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

AU - Hilton, Thomas (Tom)

AU - Funkhouser, Ellen

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Schultz-Robins, Michele

AU - Gordan, Valeria V.

AU - Bramblett, Bobby J.

AU - Snead, R. Mack

AU - Manning, Walter

AU - Remakel, Jeffrey R.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Statement of problem: Despite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Material and methods: Network dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained. Results: A total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63%) were female, 2394 (85%) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77%) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86%) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46%) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98%), endodontics (n=29; 3%), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2%), extraction (n=2; 0.2%), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1%). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0). Conclusions: Approximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3% absolute difference (4% recommended treatment versus 1% recommended monitoring).

AB - Statement of problem: Despite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Material and methods: Network dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained. Results: A total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63%) were female, 2394 (85%) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77%) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86%) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46%) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98%), endodontics (n=29; 3%), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2%), extraction (n=2; 0.2%), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1%). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0). Conclusions: Approximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3% absolute difference (4% recommended treatment versus 1% recommended monitoring).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067060263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067060263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.005

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85067060263

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

ER -