Francesco Chiappelli1. 1. Division of Oral Biology & Medicine, School of Dentistry, Center for the Health Sciences University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Health Sciences, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA; Evidence-Based Decisions Practice-Based Research Network, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Dental Group of Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, CA, USA; International Research Consulting, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: fchiappelli@dentistry.ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1999, the American Dental Association proffered a definition of the term evidence-based dentistry, which is still very much used to this day. It stated that "… evidence-based dentistry is an approach to oral health care that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the patient's oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Concerted research during the past 2 decades have defined and characterized the protocols that obtain the qualitative and quantitative consensus of the best evidence base. This component of evidence-based dentistry, which is referred to as evidence-based dental research, is brought about as comparative effectiveness research with the research synthesis design. The best evidence base is judiciously used to generate evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, which in turn inform evidence-based dental practice. DISCUSSION: At this juncture, the complexity of the construct of evidence-based dentistry dictates several avenues of current and future inquiry and development. The most urgent and important of these is undoubtedly to craft and validate novel didactic and practical methodologies to teach evidence-based dentistry-both research and practice-to the next generation of dental researchers and clinical dentists and to optimize the integration of evidence-based dentistry in the dental curriculum. Secondarily, but certainly not of lesser importance, is the need to open and expand new research opportunities in subdomains critical to successful evidence-based dental practice, such as stakeholder engagement, teledentistry, patient-centered care, individual patient data analysis, and health literacy of the patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The course that has led evidence-based dentistry from its infancy in 1999 to a state of relative recognition, if not acceptance across academic and private clinical dentistry in the United States and abroad that the field enjoys today, has been arduous. The concerted efforts by researchers and clinicians were aided considerably by the political environment, which, during the years, proffered funding to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute. These have been significant catalysts of the field of comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based research in medicine and dentistry and have fostered and defended the pursuit of evidence-based endeavors in translational health care. The road ahead does not promise to be easier in next 2 decades. In fact, it has become all the murkier and more complicated now as phrases such as science based and evidence based have presently been banned and declared politically incorrect.
BACKGROUND: In 1999, the American Dental Association proffered a definition of the term evidence-based dentistry, which is still very much used to this day. It stated that "… evidence-based dentistry is an approach to oral health care that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the patient's oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Concerted research during the past 2 decades have defined and characterized the protocols that obtain the qualitative and quantitative consensus of the best evidence base. This component of evidence-based dentistry, which is referred to as evidence-based dental research, is brought about as comparative effectiveness research with the research synthesis design. The best evidence base is judiciously used to generate evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, which in turn inform evidence-based dental practice. DISCUSSION: At this juncture, the complexity of the construct of evidence-based dentistry dictates several avenues of current and future inquiry and development. The most urgent and important of these is undoubtedly to craft and validate novel didactic and practical methodologies to teach evidence-based dentistry-both research and practice-to the next generation of dental researchers and clinical dentists and to optimize the integration of evidence-based dentistry in the dental curriculum. Secondarily, but certainly not of lesser importance, is the need to open and expand new research opportunities in subdomains critical to successful evidence-based dental practice, such as stakeholder engagement, teledentistry, patient-centered care, individual patient data analysis, and health literacy of the patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The course that has led evidence-based dentistry from its infancy in 1999 to a state of relative recognition, if not acceptance across academic and private clinical dentistry in the United States and abroad that the field enjoys today, has been arduous. The concerted efforts by researchers and clinicians were aided considerably by the political environment, which, during the years, proffered funding to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute. These have been significant catalysts of the field of comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based research in medicine and dentistry and have fostered and defended the pursuit of evidence-based endeavors in translational health care. The road ahead does not promise to be easier in next 2 decades. In fact, it has become all the murkier and more complicated now as phrases such as science based and evidence based have presently been banned and declared politically incorrect.
Authors: Jayakumar Jayaraman; Vineet Dhar; Kevin J Donly; Ekta Priya; Daniela P Raggio; Noel K Childers; Timothy J Wright; Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu; Mike Clarke; Nigel King; Jan Clarkson; Nicola P T Innes Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 2.757