BACKGROUND: The authors' objective in this systematic review was to investigate the barriers involved in the application of evidence-based dentistry principles, as reported by dentists. The authors registered the protocol in the PROSPERO database. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Eligible studies included qualitative and quantitative approaches, constituting information about barriers, collected through interviews, questionnaires, or conversation sessions. The authors searched databases and reference lists of preselected studies. After the selection process, the authors evaluated the included studies for potential risk of bias and collected either qualitative or quantitative data. RESULTS: After the selection process, the authors included 35 studies, of which 16 were reported in this article. The authors synthesized and classified the barriers in 4 categories: self-related, evidence-related, context-related, and patient-related barriers. Shortage of time and financial constraints were the barriers most frequently studied. However, the quantification of these barriers, as well as others, was not possible because of the variability of the results and methodological issues of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors suggest the development of valid questionnaires and their use in representative samples to quantify the effects of specific barriers. The authors encourage practitioners to participate in educational programs focused on training in evidence-based dentistry abilities, in addition to seeking accessible and synthesized formats of reliable scientific knowledge.
BACKGROUND: The authors' objective in this systematic review was to investigate the barriers involved in the application of evidence-based dentistry principles, as reported by dentists. The authors registered the protocol in the PROSPERO database. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: Eligible studies included qualitative and quantitative approaches, constituting information about barriers, collected through interviews, questionnaires, or conversation sessions. The authors searched databases and reference lists of preselected studies. After the selection process, the authors evaluated the included studies for potential risk of bias and collected either qualitative or quantitative data. RESULTS: After the selection process, the authors included 35 studies, of which 16 were reported in this article. The authors synthesized and classified the barriers in 4 categories: self-related, evidence-related, context-related, and patient-related barriers. Shortage of time and financial constraints were the barriers most frequently studied. However, the quantification of these barriers, as well as others, was not possible because of the variability of the results and methodological issues of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors suggest the development of valid questionnaires and their use in representative samples to quantify the effects of specific barriers. The authors encourage practitioners to participate in educational programs focused on training in evidence-based dentistry abilities, in addition to seeking accessible and synthesized formats of reliable scientific knowledge.