Implementation science and periodontal practice: Translation of evidence into periodontology

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered.

MAIN BODY

This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science.

CONCLUSION

For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

Dissemination and implementation research for oral and craniofacial health: Background, a review of literature and future directions

Oral conditions are highly prevalent globally and have profound consequence on individuals and communities. Clinical (e.g. dental treatments, behavioural counselling) and non-clinical (e.g. community-based programming, water fluoridation, oral health policy) evidence-based interventions have been identified, recommended and applied at the clinic, community and policy levels. Still, the burden of oral conditions persists, with inequitable distribution across populations. A major driver of this lack of progress is poor translation of research findings, which results in an evidence-to-practice gap. Dissemination and implementation science (DIS) has emerged to address this gap. A relatively new field, application of DIS represents an important avenue for achieving good dental, oral and craniofacial health for all. The goal of this introductory article is to provide a brief background on DIS relevant to researchers in dentistry and oral health. The problem of knowledge translation, basic concepts and terminology in DIS, and approaches to doing dissemination and implementation research-including implementation strategies, key outcomes, and implementation theories, models and frameworks-are discussed. Additionally, the article reviews literature applying DIS to dentistry and oral health. Results of published studies and their implications for the field are presented. Drawing on the literature review and contemporary thinking in DIS, current gaps, opportunities and future directions are discussed. Resources for understanding and applying DIS are provided throughout. This article serves as a primer on DIS for dental and oral health researchers of all types working across a range of contexts; it also serves as a call to action for increased application of DIS to address the burden of oral conditions globally.

Strategies for developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to foster implementation into dental practice

BACKGROUND

Professional and other organizations, including oral health care organizations, have been developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to help providers incorporate the best available evidence into their clinical decision making. Although the rigor of guideline development has increased over time, ongoing challenges prevent the full adoption of CPGs into clinical practices that experience variability in provider expertise and opinion, patient flow pace, and use of electronic dental records. These challenges include lack of relevant evidence, failure to keep guidelines up to date, and failure to adopt strategies aimed at overcoming the barriers preventing implementation into clinical practice.

RESULTS

This article provides a brief overview of strategies that can be used to overcome common challenges to guideline adoption. Such strategies include creating evidence-based CPGs that use additional sources of evidence and methods to inform guideline development and accelerate the guideline updating and dissemination process (that is, evidence directly from clinical practice, big data, patients' values and preferences, and living guidelines) and applying implementation strategies that have been documented as improving translation of CPGs into routine clinical practice (that is, guideline implementability, implementation science, and computable guidelines).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Adopting newer strategies for developing and translating evidence into practice could lead to improvements in patient care and population health.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study

Context

The current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.

Objective

The specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient’s adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores.

Results

No substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients’ experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients’ satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months.

Conclusions

The results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients’ experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control.

Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

The prevention of periodontal disease-An overview

It is widely accepted that common diseases of the oral cavity, such as gingivitis and periodontitis, are preventable. Based on a large body of scientific evidence, a number of preventive strategies are known to prevent these diseases, but only if routinely implemented. Unfortunately, while most preventive strategies are theoretically simple to understand, they are often difficult to employ in practice at individual and public health levels. This volume of Periodontology 2000 provides the most current information on the state of the science and the evidence base supporting a preventive perspective for the management of periodontal disease, including evidence for proven interventions as well as cutting-edge ideas for potential future interventions. In addition to well-established and scientifically proven approaches (tooth and implant cleansing, topical chemotherapeutics, reduction in risk factors such as tobacco smoking), a number of new ideas are now under investigation, including antioxidant agents, probiotics, vaccines, and slow-release alternative chemotherapeutics. Furthermore, there are new ideas to alter patient behaviors with the aim to improve adherence to preventive strategies. Finally, examples from implementation science and public health are provided that suggest novel approaches to bring new ideas into clinical practice.