Diagnostic Approach Used by US General Dental Practitioners Following Discovery of Oral Lesions Suspicious for Malignancy/premalignancy: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Overview

Journal Quintessence Int

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Sep 4

PMID 39229768

Authors

Walter J Psoter

Alexander Ross Kerr

Scott L Tomar

Jodi A Psoter

Douglas E Morse

Maria L Aguilar

Kenneth D Kligman

Helena M Minye

Vanessa A Burton

Cyril Meyerowitz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Oral cancer examinations seek to clinically identify early oral cancers and discover premalignancies prior to their progression to invasive cancer.

Method And Materials: A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and August 2017 to explore and quantify the diagnostic approach used by United States (US) general dental practitioners following discovery of an oral lesion suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy. US licensed general dental practitioners who were clinically active members of the US National Dental Practice-Based Research Network were eligible to participate. Data for analysis were obtained via two questionnaires.

Results: The majority of participants were males, practiced full-time, had a suburban primary practice, were born during the 1950s, and graduated dental school in the 1980s or 2000s. After identifying an oral lesion suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy, the next action of most general dental practitioner respondents (65.4%) was to refer the patient for consultation/biopsy. Most general dental practitioners (87.2%) referred to an oral and maxillofacial surgeon; 22% of general dental practitioners reported personally biopsying suspicious lesions. There was a relatively weak association between completing an Advanced Education in General Dentistry or General Practice Residency and subsequently personally performing biopsies on patients with oral lesions suspicious for malignancy/premalignancy (OR 1.33, P = .06). Most written referrals took place electronically and often included information, including lesion location (87.0%), lesion sign/symptoms (85.3%), lesion history (83.9%), radiographs (59.3%), medical history (50.6%), dental history (48.8%), and photographs (42.4%). When a referral biopsy was performed, referring clinicians were most frequently informed of the findings via a written report (96.7%, when positive for malignancy/premalignancy, and 95.4% when negative).

Conclusion: A snapshot is presented of current actions taken by US general dental practitioners following the discovery of oral abnormalities suspicious for premalignancy/malignancy.

References

Gordan V, Garvan C, Heft M, Fellows J, Qvist V, Rindal D . Restorative treatment thresholds for interproximal primary caries based on radiographic images: findings from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Gen Dent. 2009; 57(6):654-63. PMC: 2819355. View

Allen K, Farah C . Screening and referral of oral mucosal pathology: a check-up of Australian dentists. Aust Dent J. 2015; 60(1):52-8. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12261. View

Awadallah M, Idle M, Patel K, Kademani D . Management update of potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018; 125(6):628-636. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.03.010. View

Lopez Jornet P, Nicolas A, Martinez Beneyto Y, Fernandez Soria M . Attitude towards oral biopsy among general dentists in Murcia. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007; 12(2):E116-21. View

Kerr A, Robinson M, Meyerowitz C, Morse D, Aguilar M, Tomar S . Cues used by dentists in the early detection of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant lesions: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020; 130(3):264-272. PMC: 8256887. DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2020.05.007. View

Norton W, Funkhouser E, Makhija S, Gordan V, Bader J, Rindal D . Concordance between clinical practice and published evidence: findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145(1):22-31. PMC: 3881267. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2013.21. View

Lingen M, Abt E, Agrawal N, Chaturvedi A, Cohen E, DSouza G . Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: A report of the American Dental Association. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148(10):712-727.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.032. View

Williams P, Poh C, Hovan A, Ng S, Rosin M . Evaluation of a suspicious oral mucosal lesion. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008; 74(3):275-80. View

Morse D, Velez Vega C, Psoter W, Velez H, Buxo C, Baek L . Perspectives of San Juan healthcare practitioners on the detection deficit in oral premalignant and early cancers in Puerto Rico: a qualitative research study. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:391. PMC: 3125369. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-391. View

10.

Brocklehurst P, Baker S, Speight P . Factors which determine the referral of potentially malignant disorders by primary care dentists. J Dent. 2010; 38(7):569-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.04.008. View

11.

Logan R, Goss A . Biopsy of the oral mucosa and use of histopathology services. Aust Dent J. 2010; 55 Suppl 1:9-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01194.x. View

12.

Tejani A, Epstein J, Gibson G, Le N . A survey assessing the impact of a hospital-based general practice residency program on dentists and dental practice. Spec Care Dentist. 2002; 22(1):16-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2002.tb01205.x. View

13.

Heaven T, Gordan V, Litaker M, Fellows J, Rindal D, Gilbert G . Concordance between responses to questionnaire scenarios and actual treatment to repair or replace dental restorations in the National Dental PBRN. J Dent. 2015; 43(11):1379-84. PMC: 4604066. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.005. View

14.

Gilbert G, Gordan V, Korelitz J, Fellows J, Meyerowitz C, Oates T . Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15:11. PMC: 4324862. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-15-11. View

15.

Atchison K, Bibb C, Lefever K, Mito R, Lin S, Engelhardt R . Gender differences in career and practice patterns of PGD-trained dentists. J Dent Educ. 2003; 66(12):1358-67. View

16.

Rindal D, Gordan V, Fellows J, Spurlock N, Bauer M, Litaker M . Differences between reported and actual restored caries lesion depths: results from The Dental PBRN. J Dent. 2012; 40(3):248-54. PMC: 3279178. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.015. View

17.

Psoter W, Morse D, Kerr A, Tomar S, Aguilar M, Harris D . Oral cancer examinations and lesion discovery as reported by U.S. general dentists: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Prev Med. 2019; 124:117-123. PMC: 6540813. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.034. View

18.

Marino R, Haresaku S, McGrath R, Bailey D, McCullough M, Musolino R . Oral cancer screening practices of oral health professionals in Australia. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1):151. PMC: 5732389. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0439-5. View

19.

Melrose R, Handlers J, Kerpel S, Summerlin D, Tomich C . The use of biopsy in dental practice. The position of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. Gen Dent. 2007; 55(5):457-61. View

20.

Thomson P . Field change and oral cancer: new evidence for widespread carcinogenesis?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002; 31(3):262-6. DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0220. View